Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acdixon


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

Acdixon
Final (82/5/6); Closed as successful by – xeno''' talk at 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– It's been a long, long time since I nom'd someone for adminship, and even longer since one went through. So when I say I would not nominate someone unless I was blown away by them, I mean it.

I've seen Acdixon around at Wikipedia for a long time. He's edited on here for four years, and is a master of Kentucky biographies. More specifically, he single-handedly created the entire list of Governors of Kentucky to Good topic status here. Not only is that 60 topics that have been made better by his work, these are very notable people on top of everything. Beyond that, Acdixon has 17 FAs to his credit, and has shown clear dedication on the article writing front.

Of course, it is not enough to have written stuff to be an admin. One also needs a great demeanor and the ability to work with others. Acdixon has this in spades. He addresses any situations in article reviews elsewhere calmly and doesn't let things bother him. When dealing with new users, he handles situations properly without any intimidation.

Beyond that, I just don't see a reason for him not to be an admin. Will he hit the 100,000 deletions mark? Most likely not, article writing will remain part of his time here, as it should. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia needs more editors like him, and if having him as an admin helps even only slightly, then it should be done. Acdixon is someone I'm willing to stake my reputation on, because he's just that good, plain and simple. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I try to read articles at TFA, FAC, and GAN every so often. I have often run across Kentucky-related articles in those areas. I never really followed who wrote the articles, but when I learned that the great number of those articles had been written by one editor over a period of years, I was very impressed with the dedication that Acdixon had shown to the encyclopedia, and wondered why such an editor had not been nominated for adminship before. Was he a nasty, uncivil editor who could not get along with anyone? Was he not collaborative and chose to work entirely by himself?

Thankfully, after looking through Acdixon's contributions, I found him to be none of those things. While eventually I realized that he and I probably have diametrically opposed real life points of view, it took me quite a while to realize that because of how conscientious he was in respecting the neutral point of view policy. I also found him to be very respectful in discussions on the talk page and always focused on improving the content in the end.

As Wizardman says, it is pretty unlikely that Acdixon will end up regularly clearing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Requests for page protection. But I fully expect that in the instances where he does use the tools, he will do so after thoroughly considering whether or not the action will benefit the encyclopedia. In short, he is a clear net positive. NW ( Talk ) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I am truly flattered to have been asked by four editors that I respect (Wizardman, NuclearWarfare, FloNight, and Juliancolton) to run for adminship. What started as a hobby several years ago has become a project that has given me much personal satisfaction and enrichment. Wikipedia may never become the ideal that we hope it will be, but at a time when critical thinking, research, debate, and discourse seem to be skills of a bygone era, Wikipedia presents a forum for honing said skills that appeals to my generation ("millennials" or "digital natives", I think they're calling us now.) I'm committed to seeing a project like that survive and thrive, and will use any tools given to me to that end. Thanks for the kind words above, and I humbly accept the nomination of my fellow editors. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: My first rule will be to "first do no harm". If I have even a question about whether I should be employing an admin function, I will not do it without consulting others. (Fellow Kentuckian and admin Willking1979 is typically my sounding board of choice.) That said, I expect my use of the tools would be limited to moving pages over redirects when it makes sense to do so and imposing short periods of semi-protection in cases of persistent, obvious IP vandalism. (For an example of what I'd consider "persistent, obvious IP vandalism", see the edit history of my alma mater, Murray State University, and the repeated attempts by IPs to change the president's name from "Randy Dunn" to "Randy Dunnker", an allusion to MSU's mascot, "Dunker".) Wizardman rightly notes above that article creation and content improvement will continue to be the vast majority of my work here; my use of the admin tools will probably be very limited and intended only to make small improvements and mop up obvious, clear-cut messes. I'll leave the heavy lifting like perma-blocking, etc. to those with more of a bent in that direction. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Obviously, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the Kentucky Governors good topic, which is likely to remain my wiki-coup de grace for the remainder of my time here. Additionally, I'd mention two four awards for Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy and Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899, three featured topics (Confederate government of Kentucky, Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy, and Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899), and the creation of 96 new articles, 50 of which were featured at DYK. I try to keep an updated list of my recognized content at User:Acdixon/ArticleInfo. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: My first FA nom really stressed me out. I was not prepared to get comments like "it's a mess" and "poorly written". I was able to bounce back, correct the issues, and still get the article passed on the first run-through. In the process, I learned a valuable lesson about not biting the newcomers, one which I've tried to abide by ever since. As one example, I'd cite my discussion with new user Apexigod over his creation of an autobiography. I apologize that the conversation is spread over two talk pages. For Apexigod's comments, see User_talk:Acdixon/Archive_Jul-Dec_2008. For my responses, see User_talk:Apexigod. I regret that I was unable to convince this editor to stick around, but I feel like I gave him every chance.


 * While I typically stay away from controversial articles, I did create Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays and had a disagreement with an editor there whose worldview is most likely diametrically opposed to mine. Nonetheless, we had what I believe to be a very civil, rational discussion about the changes and worked together to find a solution that was satisfactory to us both. I hold it up as an example of my ability to work with a diverse group of editors in a civil and rational discourse to come to a satisfactory result.


 * Finally, I call attention to Confederate government of Kentucky. I realized too late that topics about the Confederacy seem to draw the ire of some folks. During the article's first FA nom, one editor even opposed the article's promotion because the subject of the article was of too little importance! Also as part of that nomination, I had a very protracted discussion with North Shoreman about how much background was necessary for the article, a discussion which spilled over onto the article's talk page. Ultimately, I'm not sure I ever got the article to a point where North Shoreman was happy with it, but the discussion did lead to a much improved article, and it did eventually pass FA. Finally, I note how consensus went against my personal preference of using "provisional" to the exclusion of "shadow" in describing the Confederate government. Later, the issue was raised by others (see farther down the talk page), but I have continued to insist that the consensus be respected in spite of my personal feelings. (Of course, this is not to imply that consensus cannot change; it can. However, I hardly think the discussions on the talk page thus far represent a shift in consensus.)


 * I hope these examples highlight my ability to deal with conflict and work with other editors for the good of the project. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Keepscases
 * 4. What is the worst thing about Wikipedia?
 * A: The worst thing about Wikipedia is the substantial learning curve for new editors. We're billed as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but in truth, to make an edit that is going to stand for any length of time, you need to have at least a cursory familiarity with probably at least half a dozen core policies. This is a necessary evil, as there have to be some guidelines if you're going to write a useful encyclopedia about every notable thing in the world! Still, it takes some familiarizing yourself with how things work around here and some good old-fashioned persistence to become a useful editor. I observe that fewer and fewer people are willing to do these things, and it probably costs us several editors (although one questions whether they would be good editors or not if they aren't willing to make this relatively minimal effort.) It also gives the perception that Wikipedia is "run" by a group of elitists. I personally don't believe that, but perception is reality with a new editor. We can do our part by being welcoming, not biting the newcomers, etc. but it's always going to be the case that some editors try to make a few good faith edits, are referred to the appropriate policies, and just decide it isn't worth it. Truly a shame, but an unavoidable one, I'm afraid. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional Question from  F ASTILY 
 * 5. Would you ever take it upon yourself to indefinitely block a registered user without any prior notice or warning? Why?
 * A. Although there are cases where permanent blocks are necessary, I do not envision ever doling one out myself. As I said above, that part of the job is something I plan to leave to other admins with more of a desire to work in that area. All that said, I can't imagine why someone would indefinitely block anyone without any kind of warning. Maybe if the editor was making blatant threats of terrorism or something crazy like that, but it'd have to be way out there before I think such a thing could even potentially be justified. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Groomtech
 * 6. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
 * A: It wouldn't be part of my role as an admin, no. Page and topic bans, just like permanent blocks, are necessary sometimes, but I can't imagine ever employing one unilaterally. In the abstract, I would say that's a decision that should be made via consensus of the community, not the judgment of a single admin, but I suppose there might be a specific case out there where I could see a single admin justifying such an action (though one doesn't come immediately to mind.) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?
 * 7. Sorry to turn this into a pile of questions, but if you could oblige me by answering, I'd be very grateful. Both your nominators mention that you would not be making prolific use of the tools, something you also mention in question 1. Could you see yourself helping with any of the various backlogs or noticeboards (such as AIV, UAA, RfPP, purely by way of example) when you have time? If not, how do you feel the community would benefit from giving you the mop?
 * A: No need to apologize for questions; I think it is interesting to see what is important to other editors. And I half expected this question at some point anyway. In the near term, as one supporter points out below, any administrative actions I perform are ones that don't ever get to the noticeboards and contribute to the backlog to begin with. Instead of my taking the time to post the issue, an admin noticing it, investigating it, taking the appropriate action, and removing it from the board, I just take care of it and everybody moves on.


 * In the longer term, I anticipate that becoming more familiar with how the tools work (technologically speaking) will improve my comfort level with them. To quote Aristotle, "We learn how to do things by doing the things we are learning to do." For example, just yesterday I noticed a highly offensive edit summary that I opined should be removed from an article's edit history. I know that's possible, but I don't know what's involved in the process. I notified Willking1979, and he took care of it, but if I had the admin tools, I could learn to do this myself, which would make me more likely to do it in the future. In short, I'll only use the tools where I'm comfortable with them and confident that their use is appropriate, but through use of the tools and mentoring from established admins, both my comfort and confidence will rise, and I'd be more likely to work in other admin areas at that time (when I need a break from content creation, which I suspect will always be my "first love" on Wikipedia.) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Alpha Quadrant
 * 8. In question one you said that you would ask first if you had any questions on the administrator tools. Would you also do this in a time sensitive issue? For example, say you are looking at an AIV report. The IP editor in question is making 35 edits a minute to various biographies of living people claiming that they were involved in the Kennedy assassination both in the article, and edit summary. The IP editor has received 5 warnings. The reporter believes the editor is a vandal bot. How would you handle this?
 * A: In the general case of a time-sensitive issue where I had a serious question about an appropriate use of the tools, yes, I probably would still contact another admin before taking action. In the specific scenario you present, however, I probably would not hesitate. First, I would say those actions constitute "obvious, persistent vandalism" as I talked about in my answer to question 1. Further, the user has received 5 warnings already and should therefore be aware that a block is a possible consequence of his or her actions. In this case, I would have no problem issuing a short block (12-24 hours) to address the immediate issue, then asking an admin more skilled at vandal-fighting to review the case and see if further action (changing revision visibility, extending the block or making it permanent, contacting the user's ISP, etc.) is warranted. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 8b: Supposing you block the IP, a few minutes later you see another AIV report with a different IP performing the same actions as the one you just blocked, but the IP is still from the same region as the previous IP.
 * A: Such an action probably puts this in the realm of something I don't want to tackle as an admin at this time. You're now talking about not only vandalism and possibly BLP issues, but also a sockpuppetry investigation, a higher probability that the user's ISP needs to be notified, etc. I'm a content creator/improver first and foremost, and I've made no secret about that. Inasmuch as I can help reduce backlogs by taking care of small issues like non-controversial page moves and stopping bored teenagers from adding themselves to their hometown's "Notable natives" list as a porn star, I'll be more than happy to do so. But stopping someone this committed to making a mess will probably take someone with more experience than I have right now, and it also takes my time and energy away from content creation, which, in my opinion, is my most valuable contribution to the project. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from Hobit
 * 9. Have you ever edited here under a different username? Have you had significant involvement in off-Wiki discussions about Wikipedia including at Wikipedia Review?
 * A: I have not edited under a different username, save maybe 3 or 4 edits as an IP when I forgot to log in. All of my off-wiki discussions of Wikipedia have been in-person discussions with friends and family where I mostly told them about my attempt to write articles about all the Kentucky governors and they mostly looked at me like I was a big dork (which isn't really that unusual). Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Sven Manguard
 * 10. Sorry for asking a question so far towards the end of the week, but I am actually rather surprised no one else asked it before me, so here it is; What is your position on administrator recall, specifically would you participate and what parameters would you set if you did participate?
 * A: Almost missed this question because of the novella I wrote below. My position on administrator recall in general is that there should always be a process for doing so, and I personally would be open to recall at any time if someone felt like I had abused or no longer warranted the tools. As to your more specific questions, I think the only way I'd be inclined to participate in a recall against another admin would be if I had personally observed the behavior in question. I'm not that interested in reading someone else's report of bad admin behavior, researching it, and offering an opinion. However, if I observed such behavior, I'd be more likely to comment. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "parameters", but if you are asking what, specifically, would cause me to support or oppose a recall, I really feel such a determination has to be made on a case-by-case basis. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification When I said "specifically would you participate and what parameters would you set if you did participate" I meant "would you allow yourself to be recalled and what parameters would you set for your own recall (i.e. who could initiate/comment/vote and how would you decide at what point you would deem a recall successful and turn in the mop." I'm sorry if my wording was not clear.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. As I said above, I would absolutely be open to recall. I serve at the pleasure of the community. To insist that my actions would be above review and insist on keeping the tools at any cost would be the height of hubris, in my opinion. I see no reason to limit who is allowed to initiate, comment, or vote on my recall; the community does a pretty good job of sorting things out on Wikipedia, and I don't think this would be any different. As to the decision about a successful recall, it must of a necessity be a little vague in the abstract case, but I would say that if there was clear evidence that a significant portion of the community believed I was abusing the tools, I would consider the recall successful. I'd be less inclined to resign the tools for reasons like "you don't use them enough" or "this one action was wrong and serves as evidence that you are a clueless admin". I'm not above making mistakes, but if they are correctable mistakes (i.e. "You did this wrong." "Oh, sorry. It won't happen again.") I'd hope that wouldn't spawn a recall. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Acdixon:
 * Edit summary usage for Acdixon can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Edit stats on talk. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nom. NW ( Talk ) 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I don't normally support this early, but all of my assessment of the candidate's contributions and interactions with others is positive. He does unbelievable article work, interacts calmly, shows a willingness to talk about issues, and seems to respond well to suggestions/criticism. I was equally impressed with his answers to the questions. All in all, I can't find any problems.  PrincessofLlyr royal court 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Seems like a good, level-headed and even-tempered candidate. The nomination statements are impressive. Overall a net positive. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 19:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. -- Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here   19:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongest possible support - Great FA work and a great editor to work with. Willking1979 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Obviously.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support.  Good candidate who also has a track record of good article writing. Madrid 2020 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Per my long-standing nomination offer. Among Wikipedia's most productive editors; more than happy to add my support in lieu of a nom. statement. Juliancolton (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) EC x2 Strong support - 50 Did You Knows, and 66 Good Articles, and 3 Featured Lists, and 17 Featured Articles, and 3 Featured Topics,  AND  2 Four Awards!!! This is definitely one of the easiest supports I have ever made. Also, look at THIS IMPRESSIVE GOOD TOPIC! Also has zero blocks, and appears to be courteous. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per nom. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Despite an apparent lack of interest in the dark underbelly of Wikipedia, which is useful for an admin, I don't see any reason why not. Clearly knows his way around article editing, and not every admin candidate needs to be champing at the bit to wield the banhammer. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support pending the candidate saying something truly wretched in response to one of the questions. Clearly here to build an encyclopedia, even if a Kentucky-centric one; would that we had at least one of you for each state (or equivalent non-U.S. political subdivision). Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per nom and very impressive FA work.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Admitedly the candidate kind of "hit the jackpot" in terms of people recommending the candidate running, which apparently is not in vogue these days..... Nevertheless that doesn't actually mean anything - trusted nominators ("urgers to run") are a good start but not the be all and end all. Solid main space work, a great level of talk page discussion and a hard review of the candidates talk and user pages seems to indicate no issues at all to me. The buttons aren't that big an issue, and here's someone that could (should) benefit from them. Pedro : Chat  23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) One of our strongest article writers Secret account 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) I trust anyone these nominators trust. But after looking at the editing history, I am even more compelled to support. Oh, and Featured topic candidates/Governors of Kentucky/archive1 is, like, awesome. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. A terrific editor making a lot of great contributions, whose work would be eased by the ability to do some admin things. It's an approach that would help reduce the burden on other admins and the various backlogs that build up, and I can only see that as a good thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Excellent content work. There's not a lot of the consensus building, helping out, dispute resolution, general maintenance, speedy deletion (the deleted content is Acdixon's userpages), AfD stuff, etc, that one normally likes to see for admin candidates, and it's possible that someone will raise that later. I feel, however, that someone as literate, careful, intelligent, knowledgeable, responsive and polite during FA and GA discussions, and as clearly capable as Acdixon is, will make a very useful and excellent admin. Acdixon has demonstrated commitment to the project, and an understanding of what's needed. There's plenty of clue here. I am particularly impressed that Acdixon took on board the impact of being treated harshly when new, and has taken steps to ensure that he treats others with kindness, respect and tolerance.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support He deserves to be an admin.  Wayne  Slam 01:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Great candidate. No red flags here.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Per NuclearWarfare. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) yes NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no reservations whatsoever. A spectacular candidate. :)  ceran  thor 03:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Looks like an ideal candidate to me. Best of luck! --  Marek  .  69   talk  03:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Lukewarm Support Strong content creation creds and the candidate has the backing of several distinguished Wikipedians; however, there are weaknesses in the collaborative part of this candidate's portfolio (eg AfD).--Hokeman (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support I've seen very few candidates who wrote at least 17 FAs (Another one I know being YellowMonkey), but Acdixon is one of them. This is clearly going to pass, but I really wish he/she could write more to our encyclopedia. He/she has been a very valuable contributor to the project. Minima c  (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 08:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Certainly. No alarms here, content work is outstanding, seems to know policy and their limits.  Ged  UK  09:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Great content editor that knows policy and how to communicate. I know they will use the tools well, regardless of experience in other project areas.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I was tempted to oppose because the tools might make him write less, but then I took another sip of coffee and shook my head. Courcelles 11:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - looks good to me. Deb (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - no brainer (the question of adminship, not the candidate, that is). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - ditto to all above. You're the type of editor that makes the rest of us mere mortals look bad (said tongue in cheek). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Keepscases (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No Userboxen oppose here, then? Plutonium27 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest support possible. Thank you Acdixon for accepting the nomination. I asked him to do this RFA because I think he is one of the best editor that I've seen on Wikipedia. I fully agree with the comments in Wizardman nomination statement. His content work is superb and the way that he shepherds his work through content reviews is equally impressive. Giving him the tools will be a true benefit to Wikipedia. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Looks sound to me. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the esteem in which I hold both nominators and the very articulate and well-thought-out answers to the questions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) per SilkTork. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, good judgement and quality content work. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Fences and Windows. UniversitySchool08 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Good answers to questions. Great contribution history. Mr R00t   Talk      'tribs  23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Stephen 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Qualified, experienced candidate with a superb contribution history. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 12:57pm • 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) No concerns.  I n k a <sup style="color:black;">888  02:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak Support A truly excellent editor who I have no issues with at all. Not certain as to the benefit of the mop in Acdixon's case, but certainly have no problem with him holding it. Worm 13:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support A good contributor from what I can see, with a good answers to the questions. I see no reason not to trust the candidate, and so support their request for adminship <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 15:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indented/struck by request of Phantomsteve - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support in view of a review of contributions, both the incredible KY Governor work and elsewhere. I trust, based on that review, that this editor will use (or not use, as the situation dictates) the tools well.--<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 18:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Extremely impressive content work. Though Acdixon lacks experience in vandalism fighting he has demonstrated that he understands the process. Looking through Acdixon's talk page he has been civil with other editors. I don't have any concerns. Alpha Quadrant    talk    19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Everything looks fine to me, see nothing that makes me think the tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Acdixon's adminship would be a net positive to the project. His content skills are fantastic, but it is clear his people skills are the real asset that would make him valuable as an admin. Zachlipton (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Notwithstanding this editor's penchant for blue.  Tide  rolls  00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No real problem with the crimson either; I'd always heard that Tide football fans were the only ones who could match basketball's Big Blue Nation in passion for their team, and saw that first-hand on my visit to Gulf Shores last year. Best wishes, and go SEC! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Lots of very good people think highly of this editor, and contributions are outstanding. Looked a bit at their history of contributions over the years and they look solid. There is of course a worry about admin issues and a lack of experience in them, but I have a very strong sense this editor will use the tools carefully. Hobit (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think this candidate will perform well under the stresses of adminship. I can trust them with the tools, and they have sufficient experience. Airplaneman   ✈  01:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Clearly a strong content contributor, and the discussions he mentioned in Q3 show excellent civility.--Opus 113 (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  04:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Most impressive answers to RfA questions I've ever seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support outstanding contributions. No reason to oppose. -- <b style="background:SaddleBrown;color:Gold;">Sp33dyphil</b>  (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 04:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support per nom. As a tangential note, the opposition reasoning of "oppose doesn't create content" and "oppose only creates content" is growing quite tiresome.  Judge a user on their merits, not focus.  Keegan (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - have seen no evidence at FAC that this user will abuse the tools. Remains calm and collected under pressure. Creates content and works well with others to do so. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak Support The opposes aren't convincing, but they do make me wonder. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 18:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - per nom. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Risker (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support No issues here.  Them From  Space  21:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Quarl (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support After looking at some early and recent contribs, I can see this user has the ability to take criticism well. Appears to be a strong contributor, and although I assume the user might hold some beliefs that I don't agree with (basing this on his self-identification on this page, below), he seems to have the ability to look at issues from a neutral standpoint.  Like the Aristotle quote as well.  The  Interior (Talk) 06:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I was a bit concerned regarding some earlier commentary, but a review of the candidate's history and contributions overrides any remaining doubts. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Lord Roem (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Seems trustworthy, opposes are unconvincing.  Steven Walling  05:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support in line with Off2riorob's opposing rationale: To me, a new admin who is "nervous in approaching" the new issues he'll encounter is a good thing.  I like a candidate who seems to think the way i do regarding RfA, that an approval is acknowledgement by the community that he is trusted to learn well, not that he already knows how to do everything, so may as well be given the bit. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Weak support Those who know me will know that it is very rare for me to use anything other than plain "support" or "oppose" - in this case, while I see no specific reason to oppose the candidate, the opposes cause me enough pause to weaken my support, but not to the extent that I will go neutral, or oppose myself <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to have !voted already, above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC) - swapped !votes by request
 * 1) Support. Answers show more than enough self-doubt and mental acuity. Haukur (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Big Blue Support seems to be a good candidate, that can be trusted, and besides, he is a fellow Wildcat!! --rogerd (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Tide Rolls. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Wow, an admin candidate who actually cares a lot about content creation! I edit a lot of pages where there are heated conflicts related to religion, and I imagine that if you were a POV-pusher, I would have seen evidence of that, but I see no such evidence. Plenty of opportunities to push POV, but a consistent refusal to do so, instead creating balanced content. I love the first sentence of your answer to Q1—and would advise every administrator to make it their own motto—and everything I see reassures me that you really meant it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Why not. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: I looked at some of the oppose concerns and feel the candidate will rise above them. Will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) +S You betcha. Solenodon (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Good editor. <font color="Blue">Orphan <font color="Tiffany Blue">Wiki 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) oppose' - user appears as yet inexperienced in the wide issues the admin will encounter.and nervous in approaching them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - as per Off2riorob - user has limited experience in vandal fighting, and a good proportion of admin's time is dealing with vandals. Some more experience in this area would be desirable.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose- I do not think that this nominee will perform well under the stresses of adminship.JDONT (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to badger but can you explain why, also I have a concern about your userpage that u should take care of. Thanks Secret account 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I don't like that he claims he "...typically stay[s] away from controversial articles..." but a) goes on to create Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. Funny how these inhibitions become atypical. And b) that with the Confederate Government of Kentucky article he "realized too late that topics about the Confederacy seem to draw the ire of some folks." Whereas for a) I would expect a serious candidate to have enough wiki-smarts and general self-awareness to come up with at least a halfway credible cover/excuse for pushing politico-religious bias, then b) (if the candidate is to be believed) shows seriously limited awareness. However, I find that ignorance claim laughably disingenuous and for an excuse, absurd. Plus points, though, for admitting that the agreed article content didn't contain the nomenclature he'd set his heart on. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to challenge your rationale for opposing, but I feel like I should respond because these concerns occurred to me as well when reviewing the candidate's contributions. My conclusion was that he was worth supporting, for the following reasons. First, he said that he "typically" stays away from controversial articles, not that he has never been involved in controversy: I do not find this hard to reconcile with the fact that he has created two controversial articles. Second, looking at his actual involvement in the controversies at those articles, Confederate Government of Kentucky, at least, does not particularly concern me: it has become a featured article, largely through his work, and it does not seem to me that he has edited tendentiously there. (If you have reason to think that he has repeatedly done so, I would be interested to hear it, and potentially somewhat more concerned.) Indeed, he seems to have worked on the talk page to find compromises with other editors on several issues. The other article you mentioned concerns me somewhat more. As it currently stands, I think it may not be entirely neutral, though I would have to look into the issue more to be sure; the same is true of his original version of it. However, he has not been the primary editor of it since then, and he linked in his response to question three to a discussion on the talk page there in which he and another user had a very civil discussion about content there. All of this leads me to think that, even if he is sometimes involved in content disputes, he will not abuse the admin tools in them, and that overall he will do his best to be a good administrator. (I should repeat that I am not trying to attack your opposition, but explaining why, despite sharing some of your concerns, I supported the candidacy; I also perhaps should mention that, based on looking at Acdixon's userpage, I am likely to disagree with him on many political issues - my support is not due to agreement with him in content disputes.)--Opus 113 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I find it impossible to reconcile. Second, so its a featured article...so, er, the more you know, the less you ...er...claim to know? Anyway, you stated you're "not trying to challenge my rationale" and then proceeded to do exactly that, so I can see exactly where you're coming from with your support Plutonium27 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm just now getting around to responding here. First, I would like to point out that, of the nearly 100 articles I've created over four and a half years, probably four could be considered controversial – PFOX, Confederate government of Kentucky, The Family Foundation of Kentucky, and maybe National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I think that if about 5% of the articles I've ever created are controversial, it is fair to call my involvement with controversial articles "atypical". Further, if you were to look at my edit history to see which articles I've contributed to that are controversial, you'd find that my ratio of contributions to such articles versus my overall number of contributions is probably even lower than that. So I stand by my statement that I "typically" stay away from controversial articles. I never said I avoid them entirely.
 * Second, your assertion that I should have enough smarts to come up with a "halfway credible cover/excuse" is, in my opinion, an egregious violation of WP:AGF. I'm not here to cover up anything. Since 2006, my user page has freely advertised my religious and political affiliations and every article I've created.
 * Further, you assert that I am trying to cover some "politico-religious bias", yet the only evidence you have cited so far is that I created articles about a few notable, controversial topics. Are you asserting that these articles are about fringe groups/topics that shouldn't have articles? Is that why my creating them should be seen as evidence of bias? Or have I presented them in a way that violates WP:NPOV? Does my edit history show that I've tried to whitewash them, eliminating any mention of their controversial nature added by other editors? Or is the fact that I even created articles about organizations/topics that are controversial de facto evidence of bias, regardless of how they are presented? Should I have waited for someone with a neutral or opposing viewpoint to create them instead?
 * Additionally, you assert that I should have known that an article about the Confederate government would be controversial, calling my claim "laughably disingenuous", "absurd", and evidence of "seriously limited awareness". Considering that we have an entire task force dedicated to covering the American Civil War, and considering that Confederate-related topics should be expected to comprise a good bit of that task force's work, I'm not sure that should have been as obvious as you claim. Perhaps I should have expected some resistance, but considering that the war has been over for almost a century and a half, I really didn't expect folks to get so worked up about my writing an article about some folks on the losing side. What I saw, in my opinion, was an attempt to downplay any semblance of importance of the topic (to the point of suggesting it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all) and an attempt to discredit and even demean the people involved in its formation and operation. We don't have to agree with those people or their actions, but we should try to cover them as neutrally as possible.
 * Finally, you assert that I "had my heart set on" some particular verbiage with regard to Confederate government of Kentucky. Are you implying that I have some particular interest in softening the language in that article so that it presents the topic in a more favorable light? Do you think I have some allegiance to the long-dead Confederacy? (If you are interested, the reason I began work on the article is because the government was formed in Russellville and its capital was Bowling Green. Both are about an hour's drive for me, so I thought I might have easier access to locations/sources about the topic than others. Most of Kentucky's political history centers on Central Kentucky, about three hours away from me.) You reluctantly acknowledge that I abode by consensus rather than pushing my purported "heart-set language"; I would think this is what folks are looking for in an administrator.
 * In short, I'm not sure I fully understand your reasons for opposing, but you are, of course, entitled to oppose for pretty much any reason you want to. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't meant to be an attempt to change the Oppose vote at all, but it just seems like a suitable thread for me to offer my thoughts on this particular point. I note that Acdixon openly describes himself as holding deeply conservative religious views, which suggests he and I would almost certainly disagree quite strongly on a number of issues. For example, I am very much a liberal with respect to people's individual natures, freedoms, lifestyles, choices etc, and I am a strong supporter of the freedom and equality of people of various sexualities - and I think that organizations that maintain that homosexuality is a choice, as apparently does Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, are talking bigoted arrant nonsense. But I support Acdixon for admin, because what matters here is not his political, social or religious opinions, but whether I think he would use the admin tools improperly - and I'm convinced that he would not. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This last comment contains a lot of what I meant to say in my post above, but put in a much clearer and more direct way. By "not trying to challenge your rationale" I meant, more or less, that it was not "an attempt to change the Oppose vote". I didn't mean to start a contentious thread, but perhaps I should have foreseen that.--Opus 113 (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - As per Off2riorob, you seem to be a bit hesitant about many of issues that admins deal with daily. Saying that you would ask an admin for advice in almost every case of blocking a user does not inspire confidence in me.  Also, your answer to question 5 worries me, as there are multiple cases in which a user could be indef. blocked without prior warning, including in sockpuppet investigations.  I see that you're a great content creator, which is a definite plus, but I do not see that you fully understand all of the policies and backlogs that are usually associated with administrator activity.  Logan Talk Contributions 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I'm just commenting here because I don't know where else to ask this, not specifically in response to your oppose. It seems most of the opposes are based on the idea that I am hesitant about using the tools regularly. Above, it is asserted that use of the tools is a "daily" occurrence for an admin. I wonder, does an admin have to use the tools that often to make a good admin? Is there no place for admins who make only occasional, largely non-controversial use of the tools? I'm not trying to change your oppose; indeed, I expected some opposition on these grounds. I just wonder how the community feels about this. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the community, but i can tell you that your plans for the tools are, as i state above, one of my reasons for my support. I'd be much more scared of a candidate who came in saying, in essence, "Already i've done this, that, and the other, i've made decisions and pointed out to admins what needs to be done; i just need the tools now to do it all myself and stop pestering them".  A calm, measured, yes even "nervous" approach to using what you're comfortable with and, possibly slowly, learning by asking about what you're not, seems to me wonderful. Cheers, LindsayHello 07:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) User is a content creator, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for my support. Looking through the last 18 months of edits, I see nothing in particular that is problematic, however there is something that just doesn't seem right and as such I cannot support, but nothing that I can see that would cause me to oppose. Sorry. Anyway, some thoughts I had while reviewing. I see little to no attempts at dispute resolution. I'm concerned with the answer to question 3, particularly the second paragraph. While most administrative actions will be entirely boring, the ones that draw fire are those where there is some protracted dispute. I like administrators who have been involved in disputes instead of simply avoiding them. Reverting vandalism without warnings. If you're going to label an edit as vandalism, please warn the user on their talk page. Then if they continue the vandalism they can be blocked sooner. Uploading public domain images to en not commons. Since they are all used in articles, I don't have a big problem, but should another wikimedia project want to use them they would have to locally upload them again. Be more careful at xfds. You !voted twice at Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. If you ever close any xfds, watch for double voting. As it is highly likely this will pass, I leave you with the words of Alan Shepard, don't fuck up. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I regret that you feel "something just doesn't seem right" about me and that this has kept you from supporting me, but I'm pleased that you didn't find anything egregious in my history that warrants an oppose. Allow me to respond to a few of your comments anyway.
 * First, regarding my aversion to controversy, I'm mainly referring to the articles that I choose to involve myself with. It is little secret that I hold deeply conservative religious views, views that some might even consider "out of the mainstream" (whatever that means). As such, I realize that editing articles like Abortion in the United States or Evolution would probably not be the most productive use of my time. While I try very hard to adhere to NPOV, it's easier when writing about a long-dead politician than a current issue about which I feel strongly. Besides, since I make little effort to conceal my worldview, I suspect my motives would be questioned in spite of my degree of success in adhering to NPOV. There are fora that I utilize for debating these issues – Wikipedia isn't one of them, and I don't feel it should be. However, my aversion to conflict doesn't prohibit me from contributing to discussions on less controversial and potentially inflammatory subjects as long as I have something new and productive to contribute.
 * Second, regarding vandalism reversions, I typically apply this label only to obvious cases (i.e. cases where the user practically has to know that what they are doing is vandalism.) That said, your point about warning them in order to block them sooner is well-taken.
 * Regarding uploading images to Commons, I know I probably should, but I've not taken the time to learn the category structure over there, and I have generally preferred to focus all my effort on one project (i.e. Wikipedia.) Not an excuse, just stating my logic, however flawed and misguided it may be.
 * Regarding the double !vote at AfD, that was just a screw up on my part, plain and simple. I'm not too proud to admit when I screw up. Not sure what would have motivated me to !vote twice. I know that's not something you do; nonetheless, there it is. My bad.
 * Thanks for giving me a chance to respond. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Cabal nominee in an era where the increasingly cabal-esque nature of Wikipedia administration is getting significant media attention. I imagine this will pass, but I have misgivings about all the name dropping in the questions. That said, I also have no reason to oppose. Townlake (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cabal nominee. I found that to be hilarious. What "name dropping in the questions" are you talking about? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the bulk of what I'm referring to here was in the acceptance of the nomination rather than "the questions"; I misspoke. I'm glad you got a laugh. Townlake (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear my intent has been misconstrued. While I know self-noms are allowed, there was just something off-putting to me personally about saying "Look what a great editor I am. Give me the tools. I deserve them." I just wanted to show that my nomination was someone else's idea (multiple "someone elses", in fact). Were it not for the request of these editors, it's unlikely I would ever have come to RfA because of my personal aversion to self-nom. Sorry for not being more clear about that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, if someone implies that you should vote for them because they have the respect of X, Y and Z, then a rebuttal along the lines of "but I don't trust X, Y and Z" is perfectly valid ... the candidate opened the door to the question of reputation. But the cost is obvious: we could argue the merits of X, Y and Z all day and not be any better off for it.  During an RFA that's passing 35–0, the cost is likely to outweigh any benefit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, again, I just wanted to convey that this RfA wasn't just me saying "I think I'm good enough". It was done with the encouragement of other editors, and it really doesn't matter who they are. I just figured someone would ask if I didn't say up front. I didn't mean to imply that anyone should vote one way or another based upon the opinion of these other editors, but on reflection, I can see where it might have been taken that way. Point taken. Sorry about that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that you shouldn't have said it ... if you ever find a species for which reputation isn't important in elections, let me know, I want to sign up. I meant that if you said it, then it raises the question how much their support is worth.  If I had the same concerns that Townlake does, I would have phrased it a different way, and I would have done my homework first, so that I could say "I don't think the support of these people is persuasive for the following reasons"; hand-waving isn't likely to advance the argument.  But as I say, this would be quite a digression ... maybe a necessary digression in special circumstances, but IMO not when the vote is 35–0. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, reputation is important and I respect that. When a nomination includes something like "here's a list of respected editors who will support me," that leaves me wondering how you're going to make assumptions about other editors' preferences when you're responsible for your own use of the tools. It's not enough to merit an oppose, but it's a vote-gathering tactic that I hope future nominees won't repeat. Townlake (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fully convinced that you vote at RfA's solely to attract attention to yourself. <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#FEF7E3;color=#25900D">Snotty<font color="#25900D">Wong  confer 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Townlake (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I can't say I'm totally satisfied with the answer to question 5, but it's not nearly erroneous enough to warrant an oppose.  I think I'll !vote neutral for now, and reconsider at a later date.  - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral While I see no reason not to support, something makes me feel deeply uneasy about doing so. I'm not sure what that is, and I don't remember having any interactions with this candidate, positive or negative, but something is just nagging me.  S ven M anguard   <font color="FCD116">Wha?  04:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I don't see anything of concern here regarding actions taken by Acdixon, but to support a candidate I would like to be able to get a good idea of how they would use the admin tools. I don't see much in Acdixon's edit history that gives such an indication - for example their approach to article deletion (an area where an admin with poor judgment or a bias against a particular subject area can do damage), their approach to vandals and disruptive editors, etc. Acdixon appears to be a fine editor, and I have nothing negative to say about their contributions, but good editors do not always make good admins. The nominee's stated intent to use the tools with caution is reassuring, but some of the answers to the questions (e.g. #5) could have been better. I hope Acdixon won't take this as crticism of their contributions as there's nothing that I see to criticise, I simply don't see enough to go on regarding how good they'll be as an admin.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral pending further review. Overall positive impression of candidate, but commentary above regarding lack of dispute-resolution warrants a bit more investigation prior to unqualified support. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Change to Support. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk)
 * 1) Neutral. While I was initially inclined to be worried by his ideological beliefs (especially as he has edited articles on some politico-religious topics), I can't see any real evidence of POV editing, and his reaction to controversy at Talk:Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays seemed reasonable and level-headed to me. He's clearly a hardworking editor who has contributed a great dal of high-quality material. So I don't have a justification for opposing. WaltonOne 11:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.