Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eastlaw


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


 * Nomination withdrawn. I see that it's obvious that the people here are going to judge me not on my track record of contributions, but rather on my response to a few editors who think it's fun to deliberately prod and goad people.  I accept that I don't have a lot of experience with administrative tasks.  That may change in the future.  What I don't accept is that people seem to feel the need to use this process to attack a candidate as an "easy target", a clay pigeon of sorts.  I don't need that.


 * The funny thing is, I never would have considered applying for adminship myself. The only reason I agreed to this nomination in the first place is because Prodego and Jerry asked me to, on more than one occasion.  Rest assured, I feel no ill will whatsoever against either of them for doing so, nor do I blame them for what happened here.  But as I said earlier, I'm not so stupid as to not know when to fold my hand and walk away.


 * I work on Wikipedia as a hobbyist, nothing more, nothing less. I do so for the same reason I went to law school, because I enjoy research, writing, and learning new things.  I think that overall, Wikipedia is a great project, but like all projects, it has its relative strengths and weaknesses.  But going through this kind of drama isn't worth it for a job that doesn't even pay anything, that I really wasn't sure I even wanted in the first place, isn't worth my time and energy.  The reward is not commensurate with the agony.


 * I'm going to bed soon, because I have to get up in the morning, drive into NYC, and do real world stuff with real people that will probably have greater overall importance to my life than anything that transpires here. To those who supported/nominated me, thank you very much for your trust and support.  For those who opposed me for good reason, thank you for your advice on how to improve as an editor and/or potential admin candidate.  For those who came here seeking to sabotage me, thank you as well, for reminding me that anyone can say anything they want, when they are safely hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.  --Eastlaw (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastlaw
Final (18/14/2); Withdrawn by candidate 05:13 5 December 2008 (UTC) Closed by Balloonman

– I first noticed Eastlaw just a few months after he joined Wikipedia, and was immediately impressed. Even at that early stage, Eastlaw was willing to learn from others, help others by explaining what he knew, and on top of it all write some really top notch articles. Eastlaw has been a very prolific contributor on many WMF projects, often adding material learned through his own expertise. He is never one to turn down a request for help from a confused editor, and is always willing to accept the opinions of others. He is an exemplary collaborator, and frequents the talk pages of the articles he has edited, truly following consensus. Don't let Eastlaw's lack of a presence on the noticeboards confuse you, his large collaboration with other editors on content has made him knowledgeable on all the same policies and behaviors that the more dramatic namespaces show. In short, Eastlaw is the very image of a Wikipedia administrator, knowledgeable, helpful, polite, and most importantly of all, would never abuse the admin tools. A long overdue candidate, and exactly who we want as an admin. Prodego talk  20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Second nomination: Eastlaw has been an active editor since March of 2006, and has over 28,000 contributions to this project. He has contributed to several other WM projects, as well, including wikisource, DE, and others. His focus tends to be on categorization and contribution to articles in somewhat narrow range of topics, including law. He has decent spread among the namespaces, and a review of his deleted contributions indicates mainly pages he has nominated for deletion. I have been particularly impressed to come across his name mainly only as a contributor to excellent articles and as a nominator on CSD's; somebody with 25K+ edits usually shows up in RFC/ ANI, etc... with drahmaz... not Eastlaw. He is always a patient, helpful, and civil wikipedian. Eastlaw can certainly be trusted with the sysop tools; I am very confident that Eastlaw will use the tools in a responsible and beneficial manner, and his assistance with administrative tasks will be greatly appreciated. So in a nutshell: he walks on water without making waves... so vote, already!  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination.

Let me just make a few remarks in advance. I know that there are at least a few individuals on here who don't care much for me. That's fine, I don't expect to be beloved by all. I have tried to remain civil as much as possible while here, but there are a few things that set off my temper. I have a clean block record (after about 2.5 years here), and in those (relatively few) times I have been involved in any conflict, I have been smart enough to recognize when to back off. Please try to remember this, if you want to dredge up any "questionable" edits from my edit history. I stand by everything I have said and done here. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:51, 4 December 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Probably WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RM, WP:RPP, and, when necessary, blocking obvious trolls, vandals, etc. (And yes, I have had to deal with trolls on a few occasions.)


 * I sometimes also do new page patrolling and copy-editing. I am a serious grammar-nazi. :)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: If you look at my user page, you will notice that I have started a lot of articles, and improved a number of others. I don't know if I can really point to one particular contribution which outshines all others.  I have probably created about twice as many categories as articles.  I consider myself a Categorist, and I think that categories are one of the most fundamentally important aspects of the navigability of Wikipedia.


 * Part of the reason I have created so many articles is that writing and researching different things is a hobby of mine, and Wikipedia gives me a good outlet for that hobby. I consider myself more of a content creator than a content perfector, however.  I don't think I have any WP:GA nominations yet.  I'm happy just to have contributed a bunch of articles which are reasonably informative to the average layman.  After all, this is an encyclopedia we're trying to build, not a contest to see who gets the most online awards.


 * One of the more organizational/administrative tasks I have taken on here is the organization of adding more cases to the Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. There were hundreds of cases which were suitable for listing here, which for whatever reason, were not properly listed.  I fixed most of that.


 * 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 can think of one recent example of a conflict for which I came up with a creative solution. It was not a particularly acrimonious conflict, but it did require some critical thinking both on my part and on the part of another prolific contributor, User:TonyTheTiger.  What basically happened was, he created an article (rather hastily) on a subject which I was researching and writing about on a subpage, for future inclusion.  Eventually, we worked out a solution that provided a means of including both articles, without deleting or massively gutting either, while simultaneously avoiding substantial overlap of subject matter.


 * I don't wish to rehash the whole thing here, but you can read about most of it on this link.


 * Optional questions from Aitias:
 * Good questions, all, by the way. ;).  21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
 * A. There are two circumstances I can think of in which I would do this. First, if the page was such obvious spam or trolling (such as an attack page) that there was no way of justifying its existence; second, if the person places a Hangon tag and then gives absolutely no reason on the talk page as to why to keep the page.  I'm all for giving people a reasonable amount of time to explain themselves, but some people just seem to think that the Hangon tag is some sort of magic shield.  It isn't, and we should require people to give at least a brief explanation of why the page shouldn't be deleted.


 * 5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
 * A. I already have Rollback. So anyone who is at least as cool as me should have it:  ;)


 * But seriously folks, I think that anyone who has been a regular contributor for at least 6 months, has at least 1,000 or so edits, has no record of vandalism, and a clean block record has gained enough trust and goodwill in the WP community to at least apply for rollback. If there are any extenuating circumstances beyond what I have mentioned, they should be dealt with on a case-by case basis.


 * 6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
 * A. Oooh, copyright law question...I actually know copyright law fairly well, though I am certainly not an expert.  I'm not really sure if this is an open question under Non-free content.  I think fair use requirements would be satisfied if it were a particularly iconic photograph which was being provided for the purpose of commentary/educational purposes.  Nonetheless, a free-use alternative should still be sought out.


 * 7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
 * A. I don't think that such an action would be a conflict of interest.  The IP vandal in question has already been given his final warning, so he already has adequate notice of what's coming if he continues his course of conduct.  If the vandal decides to retaliate by vandalizing my user page, there is no reason I shouldn't block him.


 * Administrators are entrusted with blocking authority because the community believes they will not abuse this power. If I were to block someone for disagreeing with me, that would obviously be abuse.  If I block a user for retaliating against me for warning him about something he wasn't supposed to be doing anyway, I don't think that any real conflict of interest could be said to exist.  We need not give obvious repeat-offender vandals the benefit of the doubt, especially not when they behave in a grossly uncivil manner.


 * 8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
 * A. If his actions were particularly destructive.  I'm thinking here of Willy on Wheels, Grawp/Hagger, and that guy who keeps harassing User:Zain Ebrahim111.


 * Additional questions from Foxy Loxy  Pounce!:
 * 9. I noticed that your major edit edit summary is at around 97%, I find that to be an acceptable number, but do you think an edit summary is important in all situations? Particularly as an administrator?
 * A. I think edit summaries are more important in mainspace and template edits, particularly when one is making a change to the content of the article which other users may question. Likewise, major changes in formatting should have an edit summary, so that later editors will know what exactly you did.  On the other hand, when I am pre-drafting an article in my own user space, I usually dispense with the edit summary--I mean, who really cares what I am doing in my user space unless it is a violation of WP policy (and I don't do stuff like that anyway).  I hope that answers your question.  --Eastlaw (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Questions from RockManQ
 * 10.What do you think of WP:IAR, and have you ever had to invoke it? When do you think an admin should use IAR?
 * A. Hmm...this is a tough question. "Ignore all rules" isn't something I have had to give much thought to during my time here.  I guess you could say that it is one rule which I have ignored (appropriate, no?)  :)


 * In all seriousness, I think WP:IAR is best expressed as the idea that the rules around here are more intended to be general guidelines rather than laws imposed from on high upon contributors. Obviously, you can't go around being a dick, causing problems for administrators and other users, but at the same time, we don't want to go scaring off potential contributors, now do we?  The rules should be a general description of what to do here, not a legal code to be obeyed on pain of death.  That's about as good an answer as I can give you.  --Eastlaw (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Eastlaw:

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

Support

 * 1) As nom. Prodego  talk  20:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) As co-nom.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Looks good to me.  Best of luck Eastlaw! Malinaccier (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Admits he has a bit of a temper, but assuming good faith here. Sam  Blab 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Because his name reminds me of Clint Eastwood...--Patton 123 21:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Looks to me as though he'll make a good admin. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support — Nothing wrong here by the looks of things. Switched from neutral. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I always wondered why this great user was no admin yet!  So Why  22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - WP:WTHN and the utterly ludicrous first oppose below. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His answers to the questions indicate that he is highly unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In light of his response to Eco below, I am switching to neutral.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support good answer to my question, also per my RfA criteria  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I've never bought the "no admin-related experience" argument, I didn't have any more experience than this candidate did when I ran, and I've been an admin for 2.5 years now. Content-building=sane=good candidate. RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Great dedication, and very, very helpful when I first joined a few projects. Lawshoot! 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, nothing particularly alarming in this candidate's history, as far as I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC).
 * 5) Support, per Standards - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I did my review a month ago. I was impressed and was waiting for this.  Syn  ergy 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Satisfying answers to questions, the first oppose below isn't very convincing.  Marlith  (Talk)  01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, I trust Jerry's judgment. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with your reaction to the oppose commenters below, notably Ecoleetage.  Admin talkpages get inundated with far worse than that, and you'll need thicker skin and less reactive stances when someone challenges your thought processes. (saying "I'm not defensive" is actually quite defensive sounding, for example).  From what I've researched, you're an excellent candidate that does excellent mainspace work, and the tools will be of use to you.  I believe you when you say you'll be able to walk away from the computer when the editing gets sticky and opinions flare, and I'll chalk up your responses and notably your edit summaries on this rfa to exactly that:  this RFA, which is much more stressful than adminship itself.    Keeper  &#448;  76  02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, The candidate has provided adequate answers to all the questions, and frankly I'm not worried about any of the opposes. Artichoker [ talk ]  02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, Have seen to be very good editor. PXK  T /C   03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strongest possible oppose based on "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" userbox. Wikipedia doesn't need administrators who feel compelled to be so smug and divisive. Keepscases (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I created that userbox from code that was actually written by another user, long ago. I didn't intend for it to be offensive.  I'm not opposed to religious people per se, I just think that blind belief in anything is not good for society.  If that bothers, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, let this go. Do you not remember the absolute chaos that persued the last time this was brought up? Just let it go and review the candidate properly, please. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cyclonenim. I appreciate your support.  Let me also say that on my user page, I note that I am not particularly militant about my beliefs.  --Eastlaw (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are interested EastLaw, read up on WP:Requests for adminship/SoWhy. It is related to that post. - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn....that was harsh. Please don't do that here, people.  OK?  --Eastlaw (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's no problem. Say what you want, you are free to do whatever you want, but just know that there are people out there who would oppose you on adminship on that basis.  <font color="Orange">Marlith <font color="Orange"> (Talk)  01:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but Eastlaw's answer to question Q1 is actually really worrying. It seems to provide clear evidence of lacking experience in admin-related areas. In some of the areas, in which he wishes to work as an admin, he obviously has completely no experience — Just to mention two examples: He intends to work at WP:RFP and wants to block vandals. He has just 9 edits at WP:RFP and none at WP:AIV. Indeed, there is no need to have great experience everywhere for an admin (candidate). However there should still be some experience, especially in the areas one wishes to work in. Finally, not even 300 edits in the Wikipedia-namespace since 2006 (!) until now is not very much. Therefore I have to oppose, regretfully. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Eastlaw is in the purest sense a 'no big deal' candidate. Rather than going after other editors, he works hard to contribute a lot of content, understands how the project works, and I doubt anyone could ever find him likely to misuse the tools. And this is after all the whole point of RfA, can the user be trusted with the tools. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm willing to learn the ins-and-outs of the process. I believe that I can pick up the rules of each task pretty easily.  --Eastlaw (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. While you seem a reasonable editor with a long history of uncontentious editing, you don't have sufficient participation in administrative-related activities. You only participated in a handful of AfDs and CfDs. Pcap ping  22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Lack of admin-related experience. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, let me just say this with regards to the "lack of experience" criticism: I freely admit that I have not done very much in project space.  That doesn't mean that I am unwilling to do more there, and it also doesn't mean that I am unwilling to learn more about the "behind the scenes" processes at Wikipedia.  I understand all your concerns, and I am willing to put in some time, when possible, to improve my aptitude in these areas. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to worry more about your attitude than your aptitude. Your comments to Ecoleetage were really over the top. Majoreditor (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Strong Oppose A lack of administrative-related experience and the acknowledgment (in the acceptance statement, no less!) of having a "temper" -- wrong combination, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I said "there are a few things which set off my temper" around here.  I never made any indictment of myself beyond that.  --Eastlaw (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should stop commenting after everyone who !votes against you? You are coming across as very defensive. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to say that as well, replying to every oppose does not look good for a candidate.  aye matthew  ✡ 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how I only have six !votes so far, and have only made a few general, non-confrontational comments to some of the other votes, I hardly think that's being defensive. Oh wait, now you're going to tell me I'm defensive for typing this, I suppose.  Hell, even criminal defendants have the right to present a competent defense, but not RfA candidates?! --Eastlaw (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed my !vote to Strong Oppose based on this highly dubious comment made by the candidate about Keepscases after Keepscases voiced his concern at the start of this section: . That is not the kind of behaviour I associate with an admin. I think, at the very least, the candidate owes Keepscases an apology. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done nothing wrong. You are a friend of his, I suppose? --Eastlaw (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is your attitude, I must request that you withdraw your nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? --Eastlaw (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, the acute lack of maturity, as witnessed by your sarcastic edit summaries --, ,  -- your slam against Keepscases by accusing him of "trolling" (and he is not a friend -- I don't even know him) and your constant badgering of everyone who is raising doubts about your candidacy (that is never a good RfA strategy, trust me). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will do no such thing. If you want to keep your Strong Oppose vote, that's fine by me, but I'm not about to let someone derail my (or anyone else's) RfA just because they disagree with something I said.  In fact, it seems to me that you are trying to goad me into getting angry, by making questionable accusations against me.  Therefore, this will be my last response to you.  I'm not playing your game.  --Eastlaw (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we do agree on one thing -- you do have a temper. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  Oppose Strong Oppose per Question one and the temper mentioned by Ecoleetage. Sorry,  aye matthew  ✡ 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong Oppose per above.  aye matthew  ✡ 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per the above encounter with Eco. Sam  Blab 02:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Wikipedia needs less short-tempered admins, not more. Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose It is rare that I oppose based solely on what I see on the RfA page, but we don't need users who are militant about their beliefs and short tempered as admins. I find his attitude not the type that I expect to see at an RfA.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "Let me also say that on my user page, I note that I am not particularly militant about my beliefs". Man, I wish we had quote tags on here like vBulletin does.  --Eastlaw (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread your quote above, moving to weak oppose.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I was just about to support, but then I read the exchange with Ecoleetage. Eastlaw's temperament: confrontational and defensive, leaves me concerned about the potential for escalation of conflicts.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my reasoning in the neutral section (now stricken).  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may say something in my own defense, I felt a bit ambushed by some of the harsher "Oppose" votes" above. I didn't go into this expecting everyone to support me.  Obviously, such an expectation would not be rational.  All I ask is that if people oppose me, it is on the basis of my actual skills and track record, not on unspoken perceptions by people who don't know me from Adam and have never worked with me on here.  I have been involved with very little actual conflict on WP up until this point, and frankly, I'm a bit surprised at all the rancor going on at this RfA. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * RfA's can be a walk in hell, especially if you aren't prepared for them. The problem is that this is most of our first impression of you and how you respond is key.  You might want to take a look at essay on what to do during an RfA.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my oppose at all offended you, I just don't think you're ready yet. Sometime in the future, hopefully - you do a lot of good for the project. That's the problem with Rfa. Many candidate's go to Rfa with the preconceived notion that the community trusts them, and then they take something that the candidate wasn't even aware of (or was and considered it a non-issue) and make it into a huge mountain that smears all the other positive contributions the candidate has. Oftentimes, Rfa opposers opt against abiding by civility, and call out the candidate like they aren't a net positive to the project. It is disheartening to many, many people who come to Rfa, you aren't the first person to have experienced this sort of opposition build-up, by a long shot. Trust me when I say, however, that your chances aren't ruined for adminship in the least - there are many editors who completely bomb Rfa on their first go because of what they perceived as something minor, and then the next time around the community seems to bow down to them - their Rfa is passed with flying colours. In any case, continue as you have been doing for the past several months, come back in maybe 4-6 months (probably better off coming in a bit later), and remember to avoid the problems that happened this time around. You should be good to go then. :)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Very strong oppose per response(s) to Ecoleetage (currently O5). If you're like this on your own RFA, I dread to think what you'll be like with a "why did you delete my page you asshole" frustrated newcomer. – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent  04:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done new page patrol before, and I've handled such situations quite well. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, and I feel terrible about it. I know that RfA is stressful, even when things go right. I understand Keeper's support, where he decides that what we see here isn't what we should judge by, because "this RFA ... is much more stressful than adminship itself".  But I don't see how the RfA process can work unless it's formal, unless there's a certain decorum to be maintained by the candidate.  Per Eco's first link, this is not the time to be deriding the opposition because they were blocked last year (what does that have to do with the arguments in this RfA?  This is ad hominem) or because they're "trolling" (ad hominem, and also not supported by your diff, which is Keepscase's entire history), or because they're "friends" of your enemies (AGF?), and it's not the place for snarky edit summaries.  You're being evalutated here; they're not.  I don't care much for some of Keepscase's arguments either, I understand why you felt attacked, but I really, really want admins to stay cool when they feel attacked.  I don't hold this episode against you, I think your contributions are great, and you'll make a great admin.  Just not today. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Keepscases. Believe what you like, but be mature enough to keep inflammatory opinions to yourself.  THE GROOVE   04:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I'm always a bit wary when someone starts off their adminship campaign with a warning about their past. I need more time to review your edits. Good luck for now. Couldn't find anything alarming, switch to support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Q1. <font color=#808080; span style="font-family:Calibri, Myriad, Trebuchet MS, sans serif;font-size:100%;">RockManQ Review me 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear Eastlaw has done a lot of good for the project, and I doubt he would abuse or misuse the tools, but his response to Eco's opposition is concerning to me. Administrators have to deal with regular criticism from their peers, and be willing to take that criticism to heart. If this is how he responds to criticism, then I don't believe he is ready to be an administrator quite yet.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) From the experience level I would support, but the response to Ecoleetage is less than exemplary, and using the word "nazi" in Q1, even as a joke, is not acceptable. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a small note here about your last point. The phrase "grammer-nazi" has evolved, in the United States at least, to be someone who very particular with grammar. It is a common-enough phrase, and does not even bring to mind the Nazis for most people. - NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  04:52, 5 December 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.