Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adam Cuerden


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

Adam Cuerden
[ Final] (66/8/7); Ended Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:51:26 (UTC)

- Er, well. I... think I could be a good admin, and believe I can be trusted with the power. But, er, I dunno, I'm a bit shy about even asking for the request, and try to avoid conflict beyond disagreements of opinion as much as possible - usually by attempting the whole "A civil word turns away wrath" method, and trying to negotiate and defuse situations. I guess that's probably a good thing... Ugh. I really hate writing about myself. Always seems rude to push yourself forward too much, and yet, I would like to help. Eh, I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Adam Cuerden talk 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * (I, of course, accept my own nomination.) Adam Cuerden talk 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I think I'd probably be best in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, and would also help with the baic tasks of speedy deletions and checking copyright violations. I do check a large number of articles for vandalism regularly, and check the contributions of vandalising users for oher vandalism.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: W. S. Gilbert - with the help of several other editors, we were able to take a subject we were passionate about and write one of the best short biographies of him on the web, that covers his whole life and works, not just the famous ones like so many others do. It was my first major Wikipedia project, and still the one I'm most proud of.


 * 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: Yes. The nastiest one was Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau, where I tried to stay out of it, until being accused of part of a conspiracy against women. A very frustrating time for everyone involved, I think. It probably worked out alright in the end: The person who was attacking everyone left, the article reached Featured List, and a special section was added to note particularly notable women opera composers, but... god, that was awful. In saner disputes, I generally try to move away for a bit, talk to the user in question, and, failing that, ask for an outside party's view to make sure I'm not just over-reacting. If I'm told I am, I force myself to change my reactions quick-smart. If not, I'll try to bring in people to help mediate. There is an example of this just now, but, well, I'm currently asking for advice and comment, and I'd rather not mention it publically in any case, as the editor is clearly acting in good faith, just has... odd views on what counts as a reliable resource that make him a little difficult to work with. Eh, well. It'll eventually sort itself out, and the article'll be there whatever happens.

Optional question from 
 * 4. Your use of edit summaries seems low. Is there a reason for this? If you propose to use edit summaries more consistently in future, would you be willing to change your preferences to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?
 * A: It hasn't been mentioned before, and I only just learned about the optional preferrence - I have a tendency, after a large-scale edit to go back and tweak it a fair bit, and also have started several articles from scratch, neither of which seemed to need significant summaries, as I was largely editing my own work. However, I've turned the feature on, and, unless driven mad by it suggesting summaries on user talk pages and such, shall leave it on for the future, so hopefully should change.

Optional questions from 
 * 5. If you are uncomfortable talking about yourself, will you be more comfortable commenting on other people? Copyright can be a tricky area, and one in which more expertise would be be very welcome.  Do you have much prior expertise, or is it something you plan to build up?
 * I believe so. Certainly, I have been fairly vocal in the one or two incidents where I've found copyright problems in the past (Baraminology and... I'm afraid I forget the other article.) I was raised to think of pride as a terrible sin, and, even if I've come to a somewhat more sensible view on that, I'm still not comfortable with having to write about myself open-endedly. Adam Cuerden talk 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 5b How would you react to a negative reaction to one of your admin actions (such as a questionable block or contested Xfd)?
 * That's a difficult question, as it'd depend on the details. If it's obvious I'm wrong, I would, of course, apologise and revert the action. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that even clear cut vandals commonly responded angrily to any attempts to stop them, and you have to stand firm in such cases. However, real life is seldom clear-cut, and I think the best thing to do in the difficult grey area between a whining vandal and an obvious mistake is to simply ask advice of other administrators, and listen to what they say. In my experience, the more advice you take, the less likely you are to act a complete fool when handling a difficult situation, and few things on wikipedia are going to be so explosive that they couldn't wait a day or two if it allows them to be handled well. Adam Cuerden talk 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from 
 * 6. Were you serious in this comment? If not, what do you think the inclusion standard should be for shopping malls? Does this view conflict with the existing WP:N?


 * Somewhat serious: It's very hard to think of any shopping mall beyond the one or two largest that would be at all notable by any stretch of the imagination. It seems odd, therefore, to have a specific guideline for something where only a handful are likely to pass WP:N.
 * It simply comes down to the fact that an extremely few shopping malls will have multiple incidents of non-trivial coverage from sources independent of themselves. Hence, with a very few exceptions, notability seems so unlikely for the grouping as a whole that it might as well be handled under a broader category. Adam Cuerden talk 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: While my initial reaction is that malls are likely to be non-notable, it's possible that I'm either simply not aware of several notable malls, or interpreting the subject too narrowly (for instance, perhaps Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco - a well-known tourist attraction, would count as under its guideline). But it does seem at first glance an unusually narrow category to need its own notability criteria, and possibly not the best name to list it under. Adam Cuerden talk 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See Adam Cuerden's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support despite "er"s, "um"s, and "ah"s in the nomination.  Don't see a reason not to, and couldn't find one.  We need more admins.  Proto   ►  14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support says what he wants to do, and has the experience. Good answer to Q2. Opposing because of the nomination is a poor idea.  Majorly  (o rly?) 14:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) He's a good guy and a good contributor.  I think he would use the tools wisely.  Guettarda 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - good editor, will not abuse the tools. Comment Opposers who are opposing because they don't care for the writing style this editor has chosen for his nomination are apparently too darn lazy to look at any of his other contributions. He doesn't write this way in articles, and if you don't care for the conversational style writing which is, SFAICS, a semi-amusing method of making it clear he isn't a power monger, then I fail to see how that could possibly rationally result in a "No" position - it is no indication he is not a good editor who will not misuse the tools. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's also because I actually do hate talking about myself: I just don't like trying to make a case for how great I am, and how I'm wonderful and perfect and would never abuse power - why should anyone believe what someone says in that sort of "how wonderful I am" speil anyway? I think I may be able to use the power to help, but, well, then you start wondering "Do I really need the power?" since, well, I have trouble thinking of situations, except for semi-protections, where it'd really have been useful in the past, and you begin to worry whether being willing to help out a bit with the drudgework is really enough reason for you to have the power, and while I know I wouldn't abuse it, I worry that I probably wouldn't need to use it much unless I actively sought it out, in all honesty. I suppose that might be a good thing: I mean, I'm not going to ban people just because they annoy me, but... it makes it awkward to ask, and so... well, one rambles until you get to a more definate question. I suppose that's the nub of it: Am I really in need of these powers? No. Might I be able to help with them? Yes. Does that mean I feel comfortable asking about it? Well, given it's taken me three months to get up the courage, going to have to go with "no". Adam Cuerden talk 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Nomination request may not quite be standard; but, I believe that it is the candidate's way of expressing modesty and humility. These are excellent qualities in an admin. Xoloz 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is one of the most pleasant editors I have worked with. He is productive, civil and reasonable with a good understanding of policy. JoshuaZ 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support I trust this user. Nomination request appeared fine to me. Saying "I'm trustworthy" is a difficult thing to say - it's far easier for not-humble trustworthy people like myself to say "I doubt the community trusts me." A self aggrandizing nomination should be hard for good adminstrators to write. I appreciate the honesty. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good editor, good guy, who cares if people don't get either his sense of humour or humility. Next we'll cast votes based on hairstyles.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Has consistently shown good judgement and willingness to work constructively with others. .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Dedicated to being civil and improving the encyclopedia. Please use edit summaries all the time in the future. --Fang Aili talk 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Appears to be a well-rounded contributor who is ready to take on more responsibility. I take the nomination as nothing more than a good-faith attempt by the nominee to present himself as a real person. Some people do find it difficult to sell themselves. There should be no criticizing of that. Agent 86 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Edit history looks good, appears to be friendly and level-headed. The opposition on this RfA is reaching to new lows of triviality. RfA is already too uptight and bureaucratic, let's not make it more so. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support KnownTypes 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This was the user's third edit outside of his userspace. One of the other ones was to a checkuser case in which he changed the name of an impersonator to my own. As such, he is the same person.— Ryūlóng ( 竜  龍 ) 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Nominee seems to dedicated to their field of interest and maintaining the integrity of such articles. Their personal behavior on their talk page is civil and polite and their edit history speaks for itself. Good luck! --Ozgod 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support So he's not comfortable bragging about himself. This does not strike me as a bad quality in an admin. Everything else looks quite good, with the minor exception that it'd be nice if edit summary usage were higher. Should make a great admin. --Durin 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Admins needed. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Per nom, observation and Durin. Garion96 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - the only question relevant is this: do we trust Adam? It's not exactly a trick question. His record speaks for itself. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Er, I dunno, I guess Seriously, he's helped write some great articles, been part of productive discussions on contentious topics, and knows his way around AfD, AIV, and the like. As such, I think that Adam will make a fine admin  gaillimh Conas tá tú? 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per previous supports. Maybe I'm being dim, but I'd rather have a bad request and good candidate than the opposite. Can't be long until we get to opposing RFAs for spelling misteaks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Seems sensible, I see no serious problems. Opposition on the basis of his nomination statement is singularly uncompelling. --RobthTalk 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support as all the above. Looking through Adam's history, I'm particularly impressed with his collaboration and discussion on some controversial articles. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Diligent, conscientious, diplomatic, modest, produces excellent work. Sadly, he's not a humourless robot too but that can't be helped. --Folantin 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Looks like a good user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I don't see any real issues or likelihood of abuse. Good luck!  auburn pilot  talk  21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. We need more administrators, and a weak nomination is no reason to oppose a candidate. User appears civil and has been editing for a full year. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support despite the meekly written nomination, the candidate has thorough experience in a broad variety of namespaces and seems well qualified.-- danntm T C 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I have met Adam in the past and he is a very helpful and capable editor. Kyriakos 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. I've seen a lot of good work by this user.  He keeps a level head on controversial topics.--ragesoss 01:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support excellent editor; consistently productive on the evolution-related articles and a voice of reason on their talk pages too. And the nomination beats the pants off the ones that read like a job application. Opabinia regalis 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Weak Support - I will look past the poorly done nomination due to other evidence of experience. Can still trust the user with admin tools.  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, will grow into the post nicely. Dei z  talk 09:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, support, uh, because. BJ Talk 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. He has significantly contributed to bring W. S. Gilbert to the featured article status. You can see it here. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  09:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -  A nas   Talk? 12:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support Poor self-nom, but that is no reason not to support a candidate that looks good. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Durin. ElinorD (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Hard worker, good grasp of policy, and one who just walked an article on a contentious topic through FA using nothing more than common sense and determination. FeloniousMonk 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Great contributions, I see nothing but civility and friendliness looking back through his contribs, even in difficult articles like those related to evolution. I think that when weighing a candidate, we should look with a broader scope than the edits that he makes to the RfA, even though those are of course most noticeable at the time.  Looks like he has use for the tools and I see no reason why he'd abuse them.  delldot | talk 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support no problems, seems to be a good user. We shouldn't oppose him just becasue he doesn't to talk about himself and expressed that in his nomination. Cbrown1023 talk 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Seems to be a fine editor, I'd definitely trust them with the tools! Telly  addict  18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Personally, I think the candidate's modesty is a good thing. Plus, his contributions to evolution-related articles show a good understanding of policy and the ability to solve conflicts in a sensible way. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, yes. Deadvolvo3, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another user whose first edits are here. And very likely a sockpuppet of the same person I struck the vote out of before.— Ryūlóng ( 竜  龍 ) 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Tentative Support.  We need more admins, especial those prepared to tackle copyright issues.  And not least, I'd hate to see a self-nom go down for the reasons cited below.  We should be encouraging people to nominate, not criticising them for the way they do it.  Substance, not style, please.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)  Support per answers to questions.  And perhaps the tentativeness of the application should be seen as a credit to Adam - it has been said that the people who most want power are the last ones who should have it.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) support don't like the nomination but whatever, still better than 10 gushing co-nominations in my humble opinion. Other opposition reasons are thus far unconvincing. At any rate, I disagree with his answer to my question in that I'm pretty sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of malls with sufficient coverage... but nevertheless he seems to have a good grasp on inclusion standards even if he hasn't yet realized there are indeed many newspapers (mostly in the midwest for some reason) with nothing better to write articles on than mall renovations and so on. This really has nothing to do with his RfA though, he managed to answer my question just fine. --W.marsh 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. I suppose this is why one should be slightly hesitant to weigh in on fields of study you know nothing about: You can end up sounding foolish. Ach, weel. Adam Cuerden talk 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support.  Reticence is no bad thing, and both his writing and his negotiation skills are good (the Boisseau case was vexatious in the extreme, and Adam acquitted himself well there). I trust Adam not to abuse the tools. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. A little humility goes a long way... The opposition is utter nonsense. From my (limited) observations, the candidate is well-qualified and dedicated, no matter whether the nomination sounds like it came from a student in Public Speaking 1001. Please improve your edit summaries, though. Grand  master  ka  13:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I welcomed him to Wikipedia and have watched him learn the ropes. I've been very pleased by his work here and feel sure he will do well with the tools. Do not think the opposes are justified at all! I have a strong belief in the whistle while you work approach to our work. FloNight 22:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) He may, er, not be a Thorougly Modern Major General but I think he'll make a fine admin. Support ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Introspection and a bit of self-doubt aren't bad things in an admin. Far more dangerous is the admin who's adamantly convinced of the right of his own actions.  Beyond that, seems like a solid contributor.  I expect he'll put the tools to good use. Shimeru 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Just the sort of editor who should have the tools. I trust him, respect his editing, and have been impressed by his handling of disputes. I don't see his nomination as non-serious or disrespectful, and frankly I think one or two of the opposes should get over themselves, and stop thinking of RfA as a freaking cottillion. Mak (talk)  21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I have very good impression of Adam's contributions, and I am confident he will be a good admin. Beit Or 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I actually like the RfA nomination statements—a nice change from people who approach this as the end-all be-all of their purpose for being here. I don't like the low usage of edit summaries.  I do like the answer to optional question 6.  Overall, seems like he will do fine with the tools. —Doug Bell talk 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support (changed from neutral) should make a good admin. Thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Great nomination statement. Very Hugh Grant ;) Good user whom I've seen around doing good work, can be trusted. – riana_dzasta 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. PeaceNT 10:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67)talk 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, will be a good admin. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per candidate's overall record on the site. Fully qualified. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I think that this user will be a good administrator. --Meno25 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Seems like a good candidate to me. Dionyseus 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support inasmuch as it seems quite plain that the net effect on the project of our sysopping AC should be positive; I join also, FWIW, in Killer Chi's thoughts w/r/to the style of writing the candidate has expressed here and the improriety of one's thence drawing grand inferences (I recognize, though, to be sure, that where one's jocularity is likely to confuse other editors&mdash;here, for instance, by suggesting a misconception of adminship, a lack of respect for other users, or an immature sense of judgment&mdash;he/she ought likely to write carefully; a failure to do so must not, I think, however, as one incident, be understood as reflective of, well, anything substantive. Joe 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support should make a good Admin but I dont believe in self-nomination..anywayz hope U win..-- Cometstyles 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose- rubbish nomination request. Astrotrain 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose is this an in-character self-nomination?  Sorry, I just don't get the joke. MLA 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight - are you seriously saying that because you don't share his sense of humor, he'll make a bad admin? Surely you have a better reason than that! "I don't laugh at his jokes, he shouldn't be an admin" is how this reads. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm humourously saying that because the in-character self-nomination was ridiculous I am opposing. Civility matters and humour has to be funny or its disrespectful. MLA 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so all humour needs to be funny to all people then? That you did not find it funny and then somehow made the leap in illogic that what doesn't tickle your funny bone must therefore be disrepectful is what is ridiculous.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I really didn't want to have to make an exposition of this. First up, if the candidate genuinely didn't want to talk about themselves, they could easily have just said so and been up front and bold about it (not going to put an example here as it'll take up too much space) rather than taking the easy way out and acting in sheepish and unrealistic written character.  Secondly, the candidate should have been able to self-identify that they would have difficulty in putting up a nomination statement when they decided to place themself in front of the community and so waited on or proposed a nomination from another editor.  Thirdly, I don't know who this is and the first time I come across them, they've not bothered to make a real effort in making a good impression.  Fourthly, if I were to modify RfA, I'd place far greater emphasis on a discussion kicked off by the nomination and this isn't a very good one.  Its also disrespectful to those who have been through the process before, to those participating in it now, and to those who find talking about themselves difficult yet they still made the effort to try.  I'll stop now but I could go on as this is a matter of principle to me. MLA 09:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Needless to say we disagree quite sharply: I do not see Wikpedia in terms beyong what it is, an encyclopaedia, nor do I see the RfA process as a sacrosanct ritual immersed in mystery, trials and testing -- in other words, it ain't the bloody Freemasons.  Y'know, Abe Lincoln was a remarkably humble, self-deprecating man, and yet he is consistantly rated as the best, or second best President in American history.  Not of course that being a Wikipedia admin has anywhere near the prestige of being president, but you get my point.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - this isn't a joke. --BigDT 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your reason again?  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to expect someone to take the tools seriously if they don't take their RFA seriously. (Also, by the way, 50% edit summary usage is way too low.) --BigDT 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Failure to take the nomination seriously is a pretty strong indicator that the user wouldn't be a stellar admin. - Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Seems like a valuable contributer to mainspace and Wikiprojects, but I don't see a need for the tools. Not much XfD participation and although he looks good at fixing vandalism, has only reported a handful to AIV. &mdash;Dgiest c 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) * The user stated he wants to help out at AIV and with speedy deletes. To do that, he needs the tools. - grubber 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ** You can help AIV by reporting people there. You shouldn't have an admin performing blocks if they have little experience with blocking criteria. &mdash;Dgiest c 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *** I wasnt commenting on whether he is able or worthy, or on whether you think he is able. I was just pointing out that he does need the tools to use WP like he wants. - grubber 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) **** This is largely because it's only rarely that I see it after it's reached the last warning point. AIV is only for very wide-spread, obvious vandalism, or continuing past the last warning. My timing has only sometimes been such so as to justify reporting it. Adam Cuerden talk 05:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) *****Please note this seems to be one of the few rational opposes and we should try not to bite. Cbrown1023 talk 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Lack of a spinal cord in even a RfA does not bode well for a person asking to assume the very real responsibility of being an administrator on wikipedia. NeoFreak 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, My experience with this person hasn't been very positive. He failed a GA nomination for an article I was working on in the middle of edits without giving any detailed feedback. Wikidudeman  (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are saying is you have a personal grudge against him and thus you do not want to support him? Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  13:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I made a foolish statement and now I withdraw it.  Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that this seems to be one of the few rational opposes and we should try not to bite. Cbrown1023 talk</b> 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a fair oppose. It could suggest that the candidate will do things without explaining. I don't see anywhere in the oppose where the user says he holds a "personal grudge", only that he "hasn't [had] very positive" experiences with the candidate. Quite different. – Chacor 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I don't actually remember this. Was it something to do with factual errors in Anabolic steroid? If not that, it'd probably be one of my early GA reviews, from when I first started doing them. Sorry I can't offer more light on the matter. In any case, if my rejection of GA was so abrupt you can remember it even now, I should apologise. Adam Cuerden talk 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -adminship is not a joke and any hint of it being so is not acceptable.Rlevse 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - why on earth would you think Adam is joking? Moreschi Request a recording? 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, not impressed by the nomination request, but a lot of good work on Gilbert.  Perhaps too narrow in edits, averaging over 6 edits per article.  No real need for the tools at this time.  The Rambling Man 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Rambling. – Chacor 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - I agree with Rambling about his nomination request and I also agree with BigDT that if he can't take the RfA nomination seriously then why should I trust him with the tools? But he appears to be a solid contributor and when he starts to take the responsibilities of being an admin seriously, then I'd support. Given his tone in the RfA, I don't know how he'd react to a negative reaction to one of his admin actions (such as a questionable block or contested Xfd).↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk  16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per opposers, but candidate doesn't look too bad so I'm neutral. <font face="Verdana"> Jorcoga ( Hi! / Review ) 02:06, Saturday, 24 February '07
 * 5) Neutral per Jorcoga. Evilclown93 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per all of the above. The candidate seems to be a good editor, but the way he handled the nomination worries me.  Edit summary is also a bit low.  Darth  griz 98 04:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Ambivalence does not become a candidate nor inspire confidence in me. I see no reason to oppose but really cannot support with a whole heart.  Pig manTalk to me 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Neutral -- I like the candidate based on the give and take above. Tell me you've turned on the prompt for edit summaries and I'll switch to support. (Go to "my preferences", pick the "Editing" tab and check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary"). --A. B. (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Happy to support --A. B. (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He already has. See answer to question 4 above. WjBscribe 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh! --A. B. (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2007 (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.