Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carter 2


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

Carter
(talk page) (7/25/6); Scheduled to end 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)  Closed by User:EJF at 10:10, 24 May 2008 per candidate's request to withdraw

- I first created my account in December of 2006 and have loved editing since! I have come to learn most of WP's policies and better yet, learned where to enforce them. It is very important to me that WP stays neutral, encyclopedic, and most of all, accurate. I CONSTANTLY run vandal tools and any other tool I can get my hands on to fight the growing stream of vandalism. I try to go the extra mile in warning and reporting vandals. I wont just revert the vandalism. This is my second self nomination as you can see here and I've had a slight name change since. Something I definitely took away from that unsuccessful nomination was that I needed to spend more time in AFD which I have tried to do. I'd like to think my input helped save a lot of articles. It has made me a better editor in looking for what can get an article deleted and to try and avoid those things when writing my own articles or substantially editing. Anyways, here goes. Carter | Talk to me 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I will primarily work in the user blocking and page protecting spaces while delving into AFD as much as I can. I hope over time to be involved in every facet of WP. I love what it is, and hope to keep it that way. There is really no telling though where I'll spend most of my time though. I'll go where I'm needed most.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions fall into the vandalism reversion category. They are my best because I feel they upheld WP's ideals which is why I want to become and admin in the first place. It might sounds strange, but I enojoy reverting vandals, warning them for the 4th time, and where warranted, reporting them and watching them get blocked. I feel strangely satisfied :). Is that wrong? I'm kidding about enjoying it so much of course. Anyways, I'm also particularly proud of Arizona's Portal that I created. It offers people a glimpse into my great home state that they wouldn't have had otherwise. I've created some pretty great pages as well. See Salt Lake Tabernacle organ, Western Savings and Loan,and the Saginaw Bay Yacht Club to name a few.
 * 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: Of course I've been in conflicts in the past, and what frequent editor has not? I have tried to be neutral, but was unsuccessful at some points. A lot of us feel strongly about certain subjects, and I made my opinion known, was corrected, and am the better editor for it. I am now VERY cautious when editing to make sure my edits meet all of the guidelines set forth. I'd like to think of myself as the 'friendly editor'.

Questions by Razorflame


 * 4.To find out if you have an adequate understanding of the policies that most administrators need to know, please answer the following questions:


 * 4a. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: Sorry to just cut and paste the answer, but why try to phrase it differently right? The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users. Banning should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. While blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, they are most often used to deal with vandalism and violations of the three-revert rule.  Blocks are not the only mechanism used to enforce bans.  A ban is a social construct and does not, in itself, disable a user's ability to edit any page.


 * 4b. When would you block a user?
 * A: I would block a user when it becomes apparent to me that them editing will only damage Wikipedia, most importantly, or when any of the circumstances here exist.


 * 4c. When should you semi-protect a page?
 * A: This one is quite lengthy so here goes. A page should be semi protected when:


 * Subject to heavy and persistent vandalism.
 * Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies.
 * User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user and when the pages are subject to heavy vandalism.
 * Policy pages which have been persistently vandalised. Policy pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
 * Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption, for example due to media attention, when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.
 * Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be employed sparingly as it prevents anonymous and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time.
 * Talk pages of blocked IP addresses which are being used for continued inappropriate editing, including repeated abuse of the unblock template, or continued uncivil or offensive remarks. The protection should be timed so as not to exceed the length of the block.


 * 4d. When should you fully protect a page?
 * A: Pages which are very visible, such as the Main Page or Image:Wiki.png, pages which are very frequently transcluded, such as or, to prevent vandalism or denial of service attacks. This includes images or templates used in other visible or frequently transcluded pages, or pPages which should not be modified for copyright or legal reasons, such as the general disclaimer or the licensing policy.
 * 4e. Under what circumstances would you delete a page?
 * A: I would delete a page if consensus is reached that that is what is supposed to happen, or if I am moderating an AfD and feel that that is the best course of action for the article.


 * 5. What would you do if someone continuously vandalizes an article that you are interested in?
 * A: Warn them and take all the steps I would take were I not interested in the article.


 * 6. How do you apply WP:IAR to your contributions?
 * A: I apply it in that I don't consult with the rules before I make an edit, however, as soon as an edit of mine is reverted or contested, I will consult. As the example illustrates below, I made a mistake, and it was corrected.


 * 7. What would you do if someone continuously replaced the content of your userpage with nonsense?
 * A: Warn them 4 times, ask for my page to be protected (which it is), and if necessary, block them.


 * 8. Someone requests semi-protection of a page, but you fully protect it. Why?
 * A: I felt that the page warranted full protection due to reasons listed above. The requester may have just been hesitant to request full protection.

 Optional Question by Zginder
 * 9. What do you consider the most important English Wikipedia policy and why?
 * A: Being civil in my opinion is the most important and here's why I think it is. There are a lot of policies on WP that deal with all of their respective problems, but this policy is one of the only ones that if adhered to, can fix all the other ones. If one is civil, arguments are heard and conducted properly, and disputes get resolved. Carter | Talk to me 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Filll
 * 10. Please answer, in essay form, two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. If you choose to answer this question, please provide a link to the responses here so people can ponder your responses.
 * I thought Keeper said not to ask those anymore?-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Carter:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Carter before commenting.''

Discussion
''Forgive me for not knowing exactly where to put this, but I would certainly like to withdraw my RfA as per WP:SNOW It is unfortunate that I made a mistake in an edit of mine, and in answering some of the questions. I suppose I'm not as up to snuff as I thought I was and realize I have a lot of work to do. Thank you all for your helpful suggestions and I hope that I take enough time to consult with all of the policies and get the proper experience before I attempt another RfA. I am not power hungry as it was suggested, I just genuinely want to help. I am thankful once again for your advice and I hope to see you all around!''
 * Unfortunately, I'm going to recommend that somebody (I cannot at the moment) politely suggest to the candidate a withdraw per WP:SNOW.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested it to him earlier today on his talk. At the time he indicated he wanted to keep it open for a while. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - Your answer to Question 2 made me a little nervous, but I think you are just expressing enthusiasm for the RfA. In looking over your contributions going back a couple of months, as well as your deleted contributions I see someone who is doing some sound work in admin areas who could benefit from the mop. As the opposition in your first RfA was largely reluctant pending more experience, and as you took that advice to heart, and have since gained six more months of solid experience, I can't see any reason not to support you. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As a person who can find innuendo in anything, I must admit I got a chuckle from the two boxes in the upper right of your userbox section. Keepscases (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Keepscases. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind my asking, is that the sole reason for your support of this candidate? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, mine was per no big deal, having not found what you did in my (admittedly cursory) look through his work. Note to self; look harder. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, per WTHN and his obvious enthusiasm.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Far away, this ship is taking me far away.  naerii -  talk  18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A Muse-ical support there.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, this RfA seems to be a I can't get it riiiiiight moment. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral Support Your a good editor, but I think another few months of solid edit will tip the balance. Cheers!  Dfrg_ msc  23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Whilst it can't help much now, I feel people might want to try harder to assume good faith. The user has tried hard to improve and I think they are doing a good job. I'd definitely trade JzG for him any day of the week. We need more positive enthusiasm, not less. Also, I must support due to prolific use of userboxes. One can never have too many userboxes! I encourage the candidate to keep up the good work and, if things don't work out, not to loose faith! Perhaps a mentorship is possible? --Dragon695 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think you'd like to attempt to not point fingers? That reference to trading Guy was just not productive or appropriate. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep working at it, look at the concerns of the opposers, and you should breeze through a future RfA. Don't give up! -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose - Two things that I can't get over... outside of templates, it appears you have no more than say... 5 - 10 actual talk message on user talk or article talk in the year 2008. I don't see any actual Wikipedia talk entries. You say you've worked on improving your AfD contributions, but I've reviewed that entire history of yours and most !votes seem to be done in drive-by manner with virtually no input to the conversation. I think on Feb 23rd you participated in 10 AfDs in under 10 minutes (or about that much). Whoa, and I just caught this article space contribution, where you add homosexual allegations to an article about a teenage boy, and you think a site called frugalfag.com is acceptable as a source? I think all the edits you made to that page were pretty quickly removed per verifiability concerns, and more importantly, WP:BLP, something that every admin candidate needs at least bare minimum knowledge of before running for adminship. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake, I acknowledge, and that was one of the experiences I had that I learned from. They were just allegations, and I realized it was an unacceptable course as it was pointed out to me later. It wasn't however, the only source I used. As for the talk messages, I don't quite know what you mean by ACTUAL messages. Could you clarify? Carter | Talk to me 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By actual, I mean, not some sort of template warning or the like. Actual real typed-in conversation. Your over-the-top BLP violation happened just two weeks ago. I'm not sure how much you could have really learned in that time. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "OK, you say that wasn't the only source you used. Would you mind answering here if you think the other two sources were acceptable, and explain why? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the others were acceptable either, but once again, I learned from my mistake and it shant be made again. Carter | Talk to me 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They may very well be acceptable, depending on what they were being used as sources for. Saying "X is an unacceptable source, period" is ridiculous.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Brace yourselves... I agree with Kurt here. Is the assertion that site is unacceptable as a source because of the content within, or because of the name? If it is because of the name, I don't think the reasoning stands. We are looking at the repurposing of a word often used in derogatory fashion as a selfidentifier used for a sense of pride to neutralize the offense of the original intent. That, or this is a reference to cheap cigarettes in England. Either way, its worth treading carefully. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I can't stress enough what a mistake it was, and that I've learned from it. Mistakes happen, and I do not feel the information was presented in a derogatory fashion, as that was not my intention. I felt I was presenting the best information I could, which was obviously a lapse of judgment. Carter | Talk to me 15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To Hib. Kurt paraphrased something I didn't say. Maybe I shouldn't have editorialized my thoughts as much. That source, because of what it is, is horrible as a source for serious BLP issues (actually for anything, but thats another story). My suggestion that an editor might have been able to tell that simply from the web site name might be off. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted Gwynand. I was just nitpicking that finer point. I think your overall oppose was very reasonable. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it's a perfectly reasonable source for information on itself. It's a lot like Stormfront in that regard...Stormfront is quite a legitimate source for information on white nationalism or for an article or section on criticisms (valid or not) of racial integration movements, etc.  Nothing is ever an invalid source for anything.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Kurt. The source in question does not meet BLP standards. And I'm not talking about the prescriptive or descriptive wikipedia one, I'm talking about real world common sense. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've opposed for different reasons, but I agree that this BLP violation was less egregious than people seem to be treating it. Yes, it was a mistake, but it was sourced and phrased fairly well as an unconfirmed (but common) rumor. I completely trust Carter's assertion that he learned from the mistake - conjecture tends to be worth avoiding in BLPs regardless of where you're sourcing it. ~ mazca talk 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, and I did address it here. Thanks again. Carter | Talk to me 17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to your implication that being a homosexual is a bad thing. In fact I've had about enough of it and I'm damned tired of hearing this canard bandied about! Also, this BLP hysteria must killed with extreme prejudice, it is a malicious cancer that is spreading into articles that have very little if anything to do with biographies. Newsflash, concern trolls, NPOV always trumps BLP! If there are people who have substantive facts that he's gay, then in it goes as a quoted secondary source and let the chips fall where they may! I'm sick and tired of the boo-hoo brigade running to OTRS or Arbcom every time they find something they don't like in a bio. It is disruptive and it quite frankly is damaging the encyclopedia by whitewashing valid negative aspects of people's lives. While ee aren't here to be a tabloid, we aren't here to be Pravda, either. Lastly, I see absolutely no reason why reporting on minors should be held to a different standard, as long as address/phone numbers aren't used. We aren't juvenile justice and there is no compulsory reason to make exceptions in their case. If a famous teen idol does bad things, it should be in the bio, period. Once again, NPOV trumps concern for minors. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there has to be discussion on this point, doesn't it belong on the talk page for the article in question rather than here? Frank  |  talk  02:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that you Dragon weren't referring to me when you said you. That you think I would imply being homosexual is a bad thing is kinda silly as it only takes a quick glance at my userpage to realize I am one too. Anyways, I apologize if you were offended. Carter | Talk to me 09:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the BLP violation linked above. I disagree with the above editor that how much time you spend on talk pages has anything to do with your ability to use admin tools (we are talking about janitorial tools that for security reasons aren't given out to everyone, not about electing a President).  However, a good understanding of WP:BLP is a necessity.  --B (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The answers that you have provided so far have not shown that you know the policies well enough to utilize them to the fullest. The most especially worrying response that you have given me was the answer to Q4b.  You do not semi-protect a page that is predominantly edited by IP addresses.  What if that IP address was making a completely legitamite article?  Based upon what you said, you would semi-protect it.  I also do not support candidates that make BLP violations, as what was said above.  Cheers, Razorflame 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I meant predominantly VANDALIZED by ip addresses. Forgive me. I also didn't say I would fully protect it. That's when I would semi-protect it. Carter | Talk to me 14:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. Cheers, Razor<b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose per Gwynand. May 11 is way too recent for that kind of contribution. Carry on learning, try to get involved more with discussion and dispute resolution with editors (not just vandals) and maybe in a few months come back and impress us all.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Very little evidence of consensus-building and dispute-resolving experience on talk pages, as most of those contributions are minor or templates. This leaves me unable to judge how effectively you'd deal with people challenging your administrative actions or requesting your involvement in disputes. AfD contributions, as Gwynand points out, are rarely much more than "per above". The reason for recommending AfD experience last time was, presumably, to give you practice in applying and discussing policies - and to give us evidence of what you've learned. The kind of participation you've made doesn't really do either. Your answers to the questions are not brilliant either, in my opinion: 4e in particular sounds as though you would follow your own opinion over consensus when closing AfDs, and 5 shows no attempt to address the issue of possible COI. Sorry to sound so harsh: you're clearly hardworking and an asset to the project, but I'm not convinced you've gained enough experience for the mop. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, per B. MrPrada (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose per BLP concerns. The concerns raised above are dealbreakers. I'm disturbed by this. You'll need some time and additional experience before you're ready for the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose too recent. You say you've learned, but that is just a few days ago.Balloonman (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Mechanical and perfunctory AfD work and WP:BLP concerns raised above. The latter really shows a lack of policy knowledge, one of our most important, and it was extremely recent. Still, beyond this, while I enjoy the candidate's gusto and zeal, there seems to be little being done (per talk pages) than vandalism reversions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Mostly per affore mentioned BLP violation but, overall, I believe that the candidate should solidify skills as an editor before applying for adminship again. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - you do seem well-intentioned and enthusiastic which are great qualities for an admin candidate - but I really dislike a lot of your participation in AfD in particular. The biggest thing that hurts AfD, in my opinion, is drive-by participation with minimal consideration; and that seems to be most of what you do there. To me it just doesn't really demonstrate that you appreciate the value of discussion to reach a consensus, and were more interested in racking up numbers of AfD edits in order to aid your planned RfA. I can entirely understand the motivation there (due to the overly-stringent requirements of some RfA participants) but I can't really condone it. With more reasoned contributions I could happily support you in future. ~ mazca talk 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. That BLP issue mentioned above was very recent, but the real clincher for me is your lack of communication with other editors. A vast majority of your edits on user talk pages is via templates (warnings, welcomes, or otherwise). Being an administrator requires a lot of communication, and I'd like to see some more of that from you before you become an admin. Other than that, I think you're doing a really good job contributing to the encyclopedia. Start communicating with people and you'll be an admin in no time. Useight (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - per the recent WP:BLP issue. Mistakes in the past are one thing, however I have seen nothing other then your statement to show you have learned from this incident. PGWG (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What did you have in mind? That's all I can show. Carter | Talk to me 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - BLP violations are a no-no. Tiptoety  talk 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per user edits. For example, this edit, and the ensuing conversation, started by Carter here (responses here). More recently, this edit summary isn't especially WP:CIVIL, and given that the only reference listed in that article at the time was the subject's own web site, the template looks appropriate to me. Carter, your enthusiasm is clear, but please spend more time becoming familiar with and actually implementing WP policies before trying for RfA again.  Frank  |  talk  19:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) No. The diffs presented paint a very poor portrait of the candidate, but it was the HRC edit that leaves me wondering how exactly that would be a good idea... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm going to avoid piling onto the BLP thing. I really don't like the answers to the optional questions. They're not there show show that you know the policy verbatim, but that you can interpret them. That is what IAR is about, being able to interpret policy and make the right decision, which isn't necessarily what the policy says. I especially dislike 4d. Page protection is used for more things than the Main Page, Wiki.png, and ; I think your answer shows a lack of knowledge on the subject. I respect your contributions to vandal fighting (it's basically all I do), but I don't think you're ready for adminship. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Editor has a history of civility problems.  We already have enough non-civil admins, we don't need any more.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Hellllll No per answer to Q6. Doesn't consult the rules at all when making an edit until it's been reverted? Giving someone like that admin tools is like having somebody drive a 16-wheeler blindfolded down a city street. In the rain. During rush hour.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking anything here personally, but you certainly don't need to be rude, as this edit can only be spun as unkind. Just say oppose, and don't compare giving me tools to anything. I have tools, and use them the best I can. Carter | Talk to me 09:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Answers to questions 6 and 7 deeply concern me. Answers to 4D and 4E show a lack of knowledge of all relevant policies.  Please consider gaining more experience and returning to RFA.  MBisanz  talk 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per 6 and 7. Daniel (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) 'Oppose per the above reasons. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per this problematic comment. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, per blp issues, weak answers. Wizardman  01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral at this stage although I may jump either way depending on issues others raise. However, I'm concerned with your behaviour at AfD; a flurry of weird calls (eg), and a barrage of "delete per"s in the immediate run-up to this RFA going live, and no participation at all in Wikipedia space for two months before that, other that three AIV reports and one RFPP report. Your user talk contribs appear to consist entirely of automated templates, you've only nine article talk contribs this year, and you've only ever made two Wikipedia talk contributions. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but that doesn't seem to me like "the friendly editor". None of these are outright deal-breakers, but there's just not enough to judge how you'll deal with other users and how you apply policy. —   iride  scent  14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. The concerns in the oppose section are worrying.  If these problems are fixed after ~6 months, you will probably see a support from me.  Malinaccier P. (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Support per Articles for deletion/Gaius Julius Caesar I, neutral per Articles for deletion/Charlotte, North Carolina in popular culture, but weak oppose per Articles for deletion/Family guy episode.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't think you're a bad candidate at all for adminship, because there are far worse candidates that get the admin bit anyways. My real - and unfortunately, deal breaking - concern lies solely with the BLP violation above. Adding that paragraph without a reliable source is detrimental to the legal status of Wikipedia and could potentially bring us into very serious situations - no offense meant, though. Valtoras (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I won't pile on another oppose, because I regard enthusiam as being important not to stifle, but there are too many concerns for me to support at the present time. Sharper grasp of policy, especially the critical ones, may make me change my mind in due course. -- Rodhull andemu  00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I won't pile on, either. But while acknowledging that Carter may not be ready yet for this responsibility, I would like to state my appreciation that he was willing to present his services for admin duties.  I hope that he does not take some of the harsher comments personally. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2008 (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.