Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clpo13


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

Clpo13
 Final (13/13/10); Closed as withdrawn by clpo13(talk) at 11:31, 19 March 2008

- Clpo13 caught my eye with their impressive ability to interact with other users. Clpo13 has a natural ability in balancing tough decisions with professional interaction with the user(s) in question. Clpo 13 has done wikipedia a service with their prompt and skilful manner in fighting vandalism, and has added value to the wiki project through their nature gift of authorship. This gift is demonstrated daily through the many articles Clpo 13 admiralty works on. It is without question that Clpo 13 will be an asset as a wiki admin. I am proud and honoured to nominate Clpo 13 as an admin. Thright (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Accepted. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hereby withdraw my request for adminship. I feel that a little more time and experience would do me a lot of good and I'll certainly consider re-applying in a few months. Thanks all for your support and/or advice on how I can improve. --19:31, 19 March 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 plan mostly on combating vandalism as I have done in the past, with the addition of deleting pages tagged for speedy deletion, and blocking users who have been reported as vandals at WP:AIV. I already patrol the recent changes page and would continue to do so as an admin. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: While I'd like to say that the pages I've created are my best contributions (especially Charles Xavier Larrabee and Burlington-Edison High School), I really think that the best thing anyone can do for Wikipedia is to improve it and keep it free of incorrect information and vandalism. A lot of people look to Wikipedia as a source of information, which makes it especially important to make sure that information isn't blatantly incorrect. As long as I'm an editor, that will be what I focus on the most. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (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: I've been in a number of conflicts, especially as a newer user. These conflicts did cause me stress, but I often dealt with it by backing off from the conflict for a day or two, usually when suggested by another user. My past conduct regarding conflicts was certainly less than stellar, but I think I've learned not to stoke the coals, as it were. It's much better to back off and follow dispute guidelines than get too personally involved in a heated argument, and I'll try my hardest to stick to that idea in future conflicts. --clpo13(talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 4. What are your (general) thoughts on the quality-control areas of the project space; GA(N/R), PR, and FA(C/R)? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A: Good Article, Peer Review, and Featured Article, right? I'm fairly unacquainted with all of that, but overall I think it's a great idea. Not only should every article have its facts straight, it should be written well, too. After all, this is an encyclopedia we're running, not an amateur collection of facts. Stylistic standards, professional writing, and good images lend to the credibility of articles. Hopefully that answers your question. --clpo13(talk) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 4a Follow-up question: Are you familiar with any controversies surrounding these areas?Balloonman (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A: I've encountered at least one user who feels that it's unimportant to have an article meet certain stylistic standards and that an article that meets GA or FA criteria isn't necessarily a good or well-written article. I disagree, since GA and FA criteria require accurate and neutral information, but I can see how there'd be some disagreement over those standards. --clpo13(talk) 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Pedro
 * 5. Under what cicumstances should an admin indefinately block an IP address?
 * A. Because IP addresses are not guaranteed to be forever linked to one person, I don't think an IP address should ever be indefinitely blocked. Even static IP addresses can change users over time. However, should it be determined that an IP address corresponds to a single user and will not change, then an indefinite block would be permissible. --clpo13(talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 6. On checking CSD you find the following article taged for deletion under WP:CSD


 * "Joe Mallargy is the former Irish tennis champion. More soon."


 * What action do you take? Pedro : Chat  08:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A. I would remove the CSD tag, as the article does say why the subject is significant or important (he is a former tennis champion). Speedy deletion under A7 requires there be no indication why the subject is important or significant. The real issues with this article are notability and verifiability. I would tag the article requesting reliable sources and then ask the creator to provide references. --clpo13(talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Optional questions from Malinaccier Public (talk)
 * 7. When moving to block a user reported on WP:AIV, what are the exact steps you should take?
 * A. First, check to see if the report is valid. If it's not simple vandalism (i.e. it's a content dispute), I'd remove the report and notify the reporter that they made an invalid report and why. If the report is valid, I'd check the user's contributions to see if they've vandalized past a final warning or if they have a long-term pattern of vandalism and blocking that would indicate they would probably vandalize in the future. Finally, I'd check the WHOIS to see if it's a shared IP address (such as one used by a school) or not, and then use the proper blocking template as my reason for blocking. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 8. A user comes to you requesting a block to help enforce their wikibreak.  What is your response?  Where should you direct them?
 * A. To the WikiBreak Enforcer, with a message that self-requested blocks cannot be honored. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 9. Will you become involved in Admin Coaching if this RFA passes?
 * A. Most likely yes. I may be bold, but I think it would better for everyone if I had some help easing into an adminship instead of jumping in without any help. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 10. What is your opinion on WP:AOR?  Will you add yourself to this?  Why or why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier Public (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A. I'd never even heard of that before. Seems like a good idea, and I think I will add myself to it. Re-confirming an admin shows that the community (or at least their peers) feel that they're doing a good enough job as an admin to continue being one. --clpo13(talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Keepscases


 * 11. Your user page states that you are a skeptic. Do you think this will hinder expected assumptions of good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A. I'd certainly try not to let my skepticism interfere with my work. I can only see it being a problem in very controversial areas where other editors may hold very strong beliefs that aren't necessarily backed up by sources, and even then, I would fall back on Wikipedia polices instead of my own personal beliefs when dealing with the issue. --clpo13(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Optional question from  Gtstricky Talk or C
 * 12 As an admin, if this was to grow into an edit war with a 3rr violation by DreamGuy, what steps would you take to resolve the situation?
 * A: I would first refrain from editing the page and request that DreamGuy do the same, while notifying him on his talk page that he violated WP:3RR. I would then ask that he participate in the discussion on the talk page to help reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. If this fails, I would then follow the other steps in dispute resolution, including getting outside opinions. Because I would be involved in the dispute, I would not block DreamGuy unless his edits became increasingly disruptive. --clpo13(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Tiptoety  talk
 * 13. When should WP:IAR be used? Should it be used in XfD's, if yes, when?
 * A: WP:IAR definitely should not be used as a free pass for an editor to violate rules he or she doesn't like. Ideally, it should only be invoked when a particular guideline or policy gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia. In other words, the edits themselves should be considered as productive or harmful. Edits should be judged on their own merit, i.e is it productive or harmful? As for its use in XfDs, I think it should be allowed to be used. If someone can show how an article improves Wikipedia even if it breaks the rules, that should be a valid argument. After all, things are deleted or not deleted based on consensus, not because they break the rules. --clpo13(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 14. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
 * A: They should never be used. When a user is in a bad mood, being blocked only serves to worsen that mood and help the situation to deteriorate. --clpo13(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly:


 * 15. What is 46 multiplied by 517, divided by 37 and subtracted by 29?
 * A: 613.757 --clpo13(talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shame on Majorly for asking a question like this... it's a disgrace... He forgot to ask you to show your work!!! Good grief, now you have to do it all over!Balloonman (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 16. Why are bananas yellow?
 * A. Yellow is the color of caution, so bananas are yellow to warn against the danger of slipping on their peels. --clpo13(talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 17. Why did you accept an RfA on a Tuesday? Why not Monday, or Wednesday? I'd like to know your thought process.
 * A. Well, actually, I accepted it on Friday, and I didn't accept it earlier because I wasn't nominated earlier and I didn't accept it later because I like to get things done as soon as possible. --clpo13(talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 18. If you could be an animal, what would it be, and why? Details please.
 * A. I would be a cat because I'm naturally inquisitive and the agility of a cat would assist in exploring places I wouldn't be able to go as a human. Plus, I'd have 9 lives and always land on my feet. Double bonus! --clpo13(talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Clpo13's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Clpo13:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Clpo13 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support as nomThright (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd like to see some more activity in those Q4 areas (from everyone!), but yeah, no big deal and all. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Good answers to the questions. Not likely to misuse the tools is enough. I eschew copyright issues and AFD. There is plenty for an admin to do outside those areas, and candidate has no interest in those areas.  Dloh  cierekim'''  12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I'd personally like to see some more contributions to the Wikipedia space, but otherwise meets all of my standards. Nice answer to question 6! Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Have seen this editor doing good work on Wiki for months and I believe he would use the tools wisely. Jack1956 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter. The articles mentioned in his Q2 answer are satisfactory examples of main space editing. Addhoc (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per convincing user page of worthwhile intentions and contributions. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support editing seems ok, I place more weight on those than answers to questions. should be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support- No real problems, could do with the tools. AndreNatas (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) 100% Support User has a great understanding, as seen above, and will make a great admin, maybe even a 'crat one day.  D u s t i talk to me 16:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, I think Clpo13 shows good judgement, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-03-19 11:58

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Lack of Wikipedia space edits, user seems unfamiliar with to much. Q4 answer is clueless.--Dacium (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer to Q4 is 100% correct, in my opinion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What does the answer to Q4 have to do with adminship? People don't need to be familiar of all aspects of Wikipedia, now do they? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Sorry I do actually like this user but the lack of mainspace edits worries me. Clock up some more and I will probably support, good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Seems like a decent editor, but his answers leave alot to be desired. Once he builds some more experience I am sure he will be a good admin. -Djsasso (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak, Weak Oppose. Most of what I see, I like. Good on mainspace contributions (which I personally think is very important), highly active editor, doesn't use Twinkle too much, uses edit summaries, communicates with other editors. The only problem is the little experience in the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia Talk isn't doing so hot, either). I think some more work in those two areas would help you get a better feel of the inner workings of Wikipedia. Do some more work in admin-like areas and I'll most definitely support. Useight (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) *Question for Useight - You mentioned Twinkle. I'm an avid user and I've seen this mentioned a lot around AFD discussions, and it appears that general consensus is that use of Twinkle is somehow undesirable. Could you please explain to me why use of Twinkle is a negative attribute that is looked down upon in AFD discussions? scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of bots can be a negative if the candidate relies upon the bot too much to do his/her thinking. If two candidates go for RfA, and one has used a bot for 5K edits and all/most of his/her edits and the other has only edited 3000 times, the person who did their edits manually edits will get more attention and have their edits respected more.  Using bots and templates does not show the RfA reviewers what/how a candidate thinks---it only shows that they can use a bot.  Over use, followed by an early RfA can also be seen as a means of building up edits to meet some 'requirement' for adminship.  Notice, I say overuse of bots/templates---bots and templates are crucial to the success of Wikipedia, but over-reliance on them can be a detriment to an RfA.Balloonman (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's pretty much it. I'm not impressed by an editor who used a script to get most of their edits done. I'm not sure how Twinkle would be a factor at AFD, but at RFA, I think it shows that the editor doesn't do their own work or decision making. It doesn't show judgement. Manual edits are looked upon as "higher quality" than just clicking buttons in Twinkle (or any other script, like AWB). Of course, I am kind of biased in this facet, because I like to brag that all of my 7500 edits were completely manual. I've never used Twinkle, AWB, Popups, or anything else. I just do my own work and like to see other editors (particularly those at RFA) do the same. Useight (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a heavy Twinkle user, I take exception to these bogus assumptions that people who use scripts place less thought/effort into their work as those who do not. Using a script to nominate an article for deletion, as opposed to manually doing it, doesn't undermine or have any bearing on the reasoning or the rationale. And I suppose WP:AIV reports filed with Twinkle are less legitimate than those that aren't? What about requests for page protection? Sorry, can't get on board with that. Besides, there are tons of editors who simply go through discussions (AFD or RFA) with the infamous and highly perfunctory "per nom" without any real deliberation.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I was very careful to say that it can be seen as a crutch... despite my strong oppose below, Clpo13 is a prime example of a person who clearly shows that he uses the tool in a meaningful well thought out manner.Balloonman (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just my personal opinion regarding using scripts all the time. Of course, as you mention above, using scripts is on the same plane as "per nom" all the time. And easy on the "less legitimate" than manual edits. I'm sure you've noticed that people who use Twinkle on every edit have a harder time passing RFA. I don't automatically oppose just because they use Twinkle, but I'm not impressed if they use Twinkle (or anything else) for a vast, vast majority of their edits. Useight (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was that they aren't exactly on the same plane. When I make my nominations or reports, I'm not simply going through the motions, as many others are not as well. I think what I'm trying to convey is this: Using Twinkle or popups etc..etc..can be mechanical and used inappropriately - "trigger happy" and thoughtless in a manner of speaking. However, as balloonman pointed out above, editors can use them quite effectively - at a level which is even more productive, efficient and constructive than an editor who relies on manual edits 100%. Don't get me wrong though, an editor who only uses scripts for editing at the expense of talking, article building, and comments at admin-related areas, is in desperate need of a revamping of their approach to editing.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that completely. Scripts can definitely help, but they shouldn't comprise all of the edits. I originally pointed out that I like that the user doesn't rely on Twinkle "too much". We both think Clop13 is doing a good job; I think we're arguing about a point which we agree on. Twinkle (and other scripts are good), just don't overuse them. Useight (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Just not enough overall experience yet. Jmlk  1  7  23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose - After oscillating for a bit, I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not satisfied with both the mainspace, or the wikispace contributions as a whole. I'm sorry. However, I think that in 8-10 weeks you should be ready.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose More project space edits equals more experience which may lead to my support in a future Rfa. ArcAngel (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose I've given this a lot of thought, for some reason this was one of the hardest !votes I've ever made. I really wanted to support, but decided to change my !vote to oppose.  First, I have some minor problems with some of his answers.  For example, question 12, he writes, because he is involved with the dispute he "would not block DreamGuy unless his edits became increasingly disruptive."  Even then an admin should not block somebody with whom they are involved in a dispute-this is a general principle that admins should adhere to.  Admins should, like everybody else, report it an let an independent third party make that judgment.  But in this case it is even more profound based upon their longstanding feuds.  Question 9 implies that he recognizes that he might not be ready.
 * But my my opposition comes from other places. I've read perhaps 1000 of his edits particularly those on various talk pages. While reading them, clear questions of civility kept coming to mind---nothing overly blatant, but questionable.  Of course these were reinforced by the candidates own words, on March 14 he wrote, I admit that some of my comments could be construed as insulting.  Or in November when he wrote, Now, I will not deny that certain editors (myself included) involved the various dispute resolution processes are guilty of the very things DreamGuy is accused of. The case may very well be one of the pot (or pots) calling the kettle black. Or last July when he wrote, I honestly don't know what your problem is, but apparently, discussing calmly and rationally isn't one of your strong points.  Now, I should point out these comments were made about the same person he was asked about in question 12---he has a very long dispute with said editor, which makes it even more important that he refer the issue to a third party admin---even if it obvious that a block is warranted.
 * Finally, I think I know why Clpo13's activity almost disappeared after last August. In July and August he was involved with at least two ANI cases that didn't go quite his way (again dealing with the same person from question 12.)  In fact, he was chided for one on his talk page, but his last contribution to the first was, pff, why did I ever expect help from the admins? {...} I said I apologized for my original comment. I know I was out of line, and I can understand the response. {...} But hey, this is Wikipedia; I should have known better than to expect real help. We are done here.  Now, if he had maintained his level of involvement with the community since making these comments, I might be able to ignore them, but his eradic editing behavior since that post makes it hard to do so.Balloonman (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, that's certainly not a high point in my time at Wikipedia. To be perfectly honest, I took a on/off wiki-break following those events. I was getting needlessly upset and figured it would be best to avoid Wikipedia for a while. In case there's any confusion, I didn't leave because I felt things weren't going my way. I left because I realized that I was getting angry enough to say stupid things that I'd later regret. A cool-down was certainly in order, and I guess I came back a little wary of possible conflicts. At any rate, I take full responsibility for my civility problems then. --clpo13(talk) 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, I also appreciate your honesty and integrity when you recognize these issues. But I'd rather see more proof that they are behind you (especially, when I see current discussions that are bordering on civility issues.)  I do have to say, that I absolutely loved this edit summary of yours!Balloonman (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Diff's provide by Balloonman are worrisome, and not becoming of a administrator, that coupled with lack of project space contributions makes me change my !vote to oppose. Tiptoety  talk 05:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Balloonman; lack of experience; and poor answer to question 4. The candidate shows potential and may be a fine admin one day. Right now Clpo13 needs more time and experience. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose while I agree that there is a lot of potential here, a bit more experience and more time since the issues Balloonman pointed out are needed. Shell babelfish 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I feel that the user needs some more mainspace edits and gain some more experience. He seems to have the qualities necessary for an admin, so he should consider reapplying in the future once he gains more experience. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The diffs provided by Balloonman would give me cause for concern about this editor where he to be give adminship. BigDunc (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral – Personally, I do not view this editor as any type of threat to misuse the tools.  However,  I would like to see more involvement in such areas as copyright violations and Afd to gain a little more experience in policy issues, before moving to Support.  Good luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I'm not sure how to take the answer to the 5th question.  Clpo13 states that IP addresses could change over a period so they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked, unless it's determined it's attached to one user.  But Clpo13 also stated that ones that are "attached to one user" (aka static) can change.  So it seems like a contradiction to me.  Metros (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) *If I may clarify, I meant that even static IP addresses can change users over time, since a person could move, change computers, or somehow modify their Internet connection to assign them a different IP address. If it was possible to determine that an address could never change, then I would support a block. But since that's either extremely rare or impossible, it seems safer not to indef block IPs at all. I wanted to be concise in my original answer, but it came out a bit muddled. --clpo13(talk) 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) A little inexperienced, sporadic editing patterns (with that archive having only 12 threads, but spanning a 7 month period) - however, you do appear to be pretty good, so I'll go neutral. Rudget . 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Leaning towards...I'm not sure, however, I want to wait until all of the questions have been answered. I'm a little concerned by the relatively thin wikispace contributions - although, I see some great potential here. I like that the candidate is hanging out at WP:ANI.   Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak oppose.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Awaiting all questions to be answered. Leaning towards support at this moment.  D u s t i talk to me 18:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I have some concerns, but right now I can go either way. I'll look a lot closer at this candidate tonite or tomorrow.Balloonman (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) After spending 3+ hours reading his posts, I have to oppose.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Hmm.. this is a hard one. While Clpo13 has made great contributions to ANI, i do not see much other project space contributions outside of that, coupled spotty activity which really adds up to no more than 4 months or so makes me neutral right now. Please someone change my mind. Tiptoety  talk 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose.  Tiptoety  talk 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Sorry, but I would like to see a little more experience in admin-related areas, especially those in the projectspace.  Probably admin coaching would be a very good experience for you, and after a few months of hard work I will definitely support.  Malinaccier (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I like the answers to the questions and I don't see anything to worry about in the contribution history. But there's just not much contribution history there, and a large part of what there is consists of semi-automated twinkle edits. (Not twinkle-bashing in the least here.) I'd love to support in a few months after more experience.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Good user, as per the support votes, but there are concerns according to the oppose votes. But I can't decide whether to support or oppose. NHRHS  2010 NHRHS2010 03:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Requests for Adminship are at their core, a request for wikipedia project members to opine on a given candidate's appropriateness vis-a-vis the sysop tools, aka the mop-and-flamethrower. Overall this user has been a valuable contributor to the project. However, sysop's need to demonstrate the ability to handle difficulties with aplomb, as they are given the ability to control others' access to wikipedia through blocks. The fact that this user has been involved in disputes recently is not the issue for me; editing long enough in wikipedia will bring anyone into one conflict or another. My concern is with how the conflict has been handled. One can transmit the same information as is found in this edit, for example, without making it an overt attack (try saying "I have had a difficult time trying to reach a consensus with User X in the past" instead). Or the edit summary here is not necessary either. It must be noted that this editor has demonstrated civility as well during this conflict, as per here. While any and every one of us has had, and will have, bad days (whether we are editors, sysops, bcrats, or ArbCom -- we are all human) and any one of those can be understood, their presence, in combination with other concerns such as a relatively low number of edits throughout all the spaces of the project, prevent me from being able to support at this time, and the user's overall behavior, humanity included, do not lead me to oppose at this time, thus, the neutral opinion. -- Avi (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral per aboves. Spencer  T♦C 01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral While I'm leaning towards support, I'm concerned about civility issues; administrators should always be kind. The edit count thing is minor, though also could be improved. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral - close to supporting, may need a bit more experience. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 19 March 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.