Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ericorbit


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

Ericorbit
Closed as successful by Cecropia 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC) at (51/18/2); Scheduled end time 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

- To the community, I present to you, Ericorbit, as a candidate for adminship.

Ericorbit has been registered with Wikipedia since June 1st, 2005, and in the two years he has been here, he has made other 18,000 edits to various sections of the encyclopedia, with over 15,000 being to the mainspace alone. He mainly edits music-related articles, and from what I've seen of his work, he does a good job cleaning those pages. In the Wikipedia-space, he is active at AIV and AfD. Overall, Ericorbit is a civil and decent editor, and I think he will make a good administrator. Acalamari 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nom and I thank Acalamari for it! - eo 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Right now I'd say my biggest contribution would be towards fighting vandalism and the protection of heavily-vandalized pages. Aside from my everyday article creation and/or maintenance I do revert a lot of vandalism and make frequent visits to the AIV page.  It would also be a convenience to be able to move un-movable pages when I'm cleaning up articles (specifically song or album pages), as User:Jkelly can attest (I've requested his help a bunch of times).  Aside from that (initially), I am sure that I will venture into other areas once I get the full scope of what is available to admins that is not available to non-admins.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My main focus has been music articles (a given being ones pertaining to artists I enjoy), but specifically Billboard magazine and other music-charts related stuff. I've created quite a number of Billboard charts articles and overhauled many of the number-ones lists, as they were in quite a disarray when I first started editing two years ago.  I contributed heavily to the WP:CHARTS guideline and I must say I'm quite amazed at how many people take this guideline (and music-charts info) seriously.  When I first got here I felt as if I was the only person updating chart stuff each week and now there are so many, it's pretty cool.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Yes, I have had a few conflicts. I've been able to peacefully work things out with other editors (excluding those who swoop in and vandalize my User Talk Page without further comment).  My worst scenario I would say was with this user, in which things got very heated and personal (it occurred after I'd been editing for about 5 months).  That user, now utilizing a different login name, and I are on good terms and have corresponded with each other since that incident.  If it earns me any brownie points, I'll add that an editor with whom I had a content dispute awarded me a snazzy barnstar after we compromised and made up  :-)

I assume there are more questions to come, so I'm here to answer whatever.... - eo 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Question from rspeer
 * 4. How do you sustain an average editing rate of over 30 edits per day? Can you reassure us that you won't suddenly burn out?
 * A: I love editing Wikipedia. I've been here two years and haven't burnt out.  I have a fantastic computer-based day-job and I work from home every day.  The internet is at my fingertips and pretty much any lull I have at work is spent checking out articles.  Don't tell my boss. - eo 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Question from ^demon
 * 5. What is wheel warring to you? How would you react if an admin attempted to wheel war your actions? ^ demon [omg plz] 03:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Up until 2 minutes ago, it meant nothing to me because I had to look up the term. Wheel warring looks to be similar to an edit war - the subject of the disagreement is just different.  I may be a little taken aback if challenged on a decision, but I certainly wouldn't react differently than I would with an editor with whom I have a content dispute.  I am not opposed to - and have several times in the past - made compromises with editors and/or messaged an uninvolved third party to step in, if necessary.  I don't see why it wouldn't be any different if the subject of the disagreement is a block or page protection, especially if a consensus has already taken place which lead to the block or deletion, etc. in the first place. - eo 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from Wikihermit
 * 6. Could you explain how fair use pertains to images?
 * A: I'm certainly not a copyright law expert, but it is my understanding that non-free images are only to be used to further illustrate an aspect of the article's subject that may not easily done with text... therefore it is not to be done simply as decoration or to fill up some whitespace on the page. Obviously the most exposure I've had with this is in music articles - an album's cover art may be used in the page for the album only, whereas it cannot be used, say, in a discography listing.  Basically if I create a new image/diagram/graph/whatever on my laptop which illustrates a concept in an article I may submit it to Wikipedia for use in the public domain... or if I am a freelance photographer and take a picture of Madonna, I as the owner of the image can choose to submit it to Wikipedia to be freely distributed, rather than taking an image of her photographed by, say, Herb Ritts.  If a suitable substitute can't be found for a non-free image, there had better be a fair use rationale and a source.  That's what I look for. - eo 13:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by AldeBaer
 * 7. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them. Addendum: As you can see, several users (including myself) are concerned about exclusive vandalism fighting and low general content related involvement. My hope is that you take this optional question as an opportunity to redeem yourself of at least some of those concerns, by speaking freely about your favourite Wikipedia content.
 * A: Before I answer this, I do want to say that despite my high vandalism fighting count, I have created and heavily contributed to many articles here... i.e. reverting vandalism, although it is important to me, is not the only thing I'm interested in. That said, I do frequent a lot of music articles and I also like to spend time clicking the "Random article" link to see what comes up (I'm easily amused)... these are some of my favorites (excluding things I worked extensively on to avoid bias):


 * Ultimate fate of the universe and the universe-end scenario pages: Big Freeze, Heat death of the universe, Big Rip, Big Crunch. Amazing stuff - the types of articles I could never write myself because I couldn't even get my mind around the concepts prior to reading about them.  On the astronomy tip, I very much enjoy Solar System and all the planets/moons articles.
 * List of South Park episodes - this is one of my favorite shows, which is what brought me to the article in the first place, but I also really like the layout of it and how it is organized. I actually like reading the articles for all of the episodes, but I'm not about to link them all here.
 * Where Did Our Love Go - I love the story of The Supremes and how they were total failures for a while before becoming huge. This is a perfect example of how a song article should be - and as long as I'm namechecking great music articles, I've read The KLF more than once.
 * Being a huge fan of Boards of Canada, I very much liked the now-deleted "Lists of samples used by Board of Canada" article (don't know if anyone saw that before it was removed).... the article sadly violated a bunch of policies (including "no original research") but I still loved it because of my devotion the band and their cryptic nature.
 * User:EVula - EVula hasn't even voted here but somehow I ended up on his page because he made a minor edit to this page and I laughed very hard at his "collection of insults".
 * House music - this one needs help, but I'm a nightclub DJ. Of course I'm going to read about house.  - eo 21:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Ericorbit:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ericorbit before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Beat the nom. Firm support'''. Vast experience. A lot of WP:NAMESPACE contibution Good range of edits in all parts of the project. What else can I say. Where have you been?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support as the nominator. That's another one I've missed being the first. Acalamari 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support All the variables are way above my usual standards. This includes my familiarity with eo in the community. The way he responded to a recent trolling comment from an IP on his talk page shows a perfect grasp of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Good luck. Yechiel Man 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Tentative support based on contributions. I should look at many more contributions, but I'm trying to get in before the knee-jerk supports of "OMG 18,000 edits! HI SCORE!" With that rate of editing, I expected to see nothing meaningful, but in fact a lot of the edits I'm seeing required some thought and helped bring an article toward correctness and consensus. He seems to interact with other users effectively and civilly, too.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support. You do very good work, but I'd advise that you exercise a bit more care in using the uw-bv template, particularly on IP talk pages and talk pages of users with only one contribution. That is my only concern, and it's not enough to stop me supporting. - Zeibura Talk 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support on Wikipedia there is no more important fight than the one on vandalism.  BH  (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support I concur above with Black Harry. The most important thing in Wikipedia is fighting vandalism. I am a strong supporter. Politics rule 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I'm not so sure that fighting vandalism is the absolute most important thing, but as an avid RC Patroller myself, I can safely say that it is not only one of the most important things, but we wouldn't be running without RC Patrollers and "organizations" such as the CVU. Nice mainspace contributions. Support. Cool  Blue talk to me 00:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - He has ariund for a long time and has ammased over 18000 edits and even though his Wikispace edits is too low, I believe he has the right qualities of a good Admin..Good Luck..-- Cometstyles 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Ericorbit has worked a lot on editing wikipedia, and has been a consistent contributer for 2 years. Also notable for reverts. -Hirohisat 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Well qualified user for adminship.--James, La gloria è a dio 01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Needs more edits though...;-)  ~ Wi ki her mit  02:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support -- not to be an editcounter, but over 18,000 edits shows that the candidate is most likely very experienced on the project. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 02:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - user shows a strong understanding, and commitment, to one of our most understaffed and problem-prone areas; music. Every edit I've examined looks good, edit summary is excellent, and his edits show a good understanding of Wikipedia policies -- especially relating to fair use, which is critical on music-related topics.  Only minor criticism would be that user does not show much interest in the deletion process, but I can't hold that against them, since they state they don't plan to focus on that area as an admin.  Superlative contributions, and well-due to have admins tools to assist in the work he's proven himself to be good at.  --Haemo 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I see no problems with this user applying the admin tools to their tasks. (aeropagitica) 04:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - looks good to me. I do not believe this user will abuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 04:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. A great editor. He has the potential of becoming an established administrator. Wikipedia will, undoubtedly be a better place with administrators like Ericorbit around. Ac s 4b 05:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support A great candidate. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, genuine need for the tools, no reason not to give him the mop. Neil   ╦  08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support — Fvzcyl n svar pnaqvqngr. Matthew 11:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Terence 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - No reason not to give the tools to him - he's experienced enough in administrative tasks for me. PGWG 12:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Excellent choice. Вasil | talk 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - Has the experience, should get the tools. --<font color="#3333FF">健次 (derumi)talk 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Good experience but does need to interact a bit more. <font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial Bold"> Jody B talk 22:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Very experienced user, no reason for abuse of tools... -- <font color="black" face="Brush Script MT">Dark <font color="#120a8f">Falls''    talk 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support A high quality user worthy of the position. Gutworth (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Seems like a well qualified candidate. – DakPow  e  rs  ( Talk ) 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Admin tools will add to user's awesome vandal fighting potential. <b style="color:#000066;">~ Infrangible</b> 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Wonderful user! -- Underneath-it-All 04:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support I think this user will be a good administrator. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  04:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. I'm very positive that this user won't abuse the tools, and he will learn what to do with them with experience. Sr13 10:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support per SlimVirgin, could do with more vandal patrollers, and I see enough article work to make me support. Down with editcountitis! :)  Majorly  (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) After having read the answer to my optional question, I didn't have the heart to oppose anymore. Obviously an intelligent person whose heart is in the right place and who won't do anything stupid with the tools. Strong support. —AldeBaer 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support per above. Peacent 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Talk pages show this user can calmly debate with irate editors until a consensus is reached. A good indication for the cool head needed by an admin. <font face="century gothic" color="#339922">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#339922">(Talk to me)  14:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support No evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Trustworthy and reasonable in replys. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee (Talk) 01:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support per Davewild. --wpktsfs 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Vandal fighters have a need for the tools; Ericorbit is a good one; I see no signs for concern.   <font color="#DF0001">Buck  ets  ofg  12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Support I'm unconvinced by the opposition (though Radiant! brings a couple of problematic diffs) and I still think that the net effect of having Ericorbit as an admin would be positive. Pascal.Tesson 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - Somebody has to man the AIV. Isolated edits shouldnt tarnish all the good work done.  Corpx 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 43) Support an excellent user who will make a good admin. And might I add a big THANK YOU for all your help reverting vandalism!  Vandalism is one of the most important problems on Wikipedia and it's very important for the project to have extra admins helping on this front -- I can't say how many times I've reported something at AIV, but because of the backlog, the vandal made a dozen more destructive edits before being blocked.  This user has more than demonstrated stability and resolve when it comes to vandal fighting and would be well suited to the tools. --JayHenry 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Editcountitis opposes are utterly unconvincing... did you actually look at his 689 article talk edits? Has the candidate actually said anything that indicates he isn't fit to be an admin, or are you just assuming? Anyway, Radiant's diff shows a common bit of misinformation many people subscribe to but it's hardly enough to deny someone adminship, and I suspect the quote suffers from being taken out of context. --W.marsh 21:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. While I understand the concern with the low percentage of talk edits, I don't think it necessarily means low community interaction, here. Sometimes, reverting vandalism causes you to gain a lot of uncontroversial mainspace edits in a short time, without building your talk count: no post on Talk:George W. Bush should be necessary to convince editors that "George Bush is a dumb Nazi Fag!" should not be included in the article. Instead, I think the talk edits have to be compared with the mainspace edits that might require community interaction, and from what I've seen of the editor, I don't think it's cause enough for concern.  With respect to some of the later oppose rationales, that the tools are not necessary for fighting vandalism: what? Are you sure you want to stand for the idea that we do not need admins who care about responding to posts on WP:AIV, protecting pages, deleting attack pages, and the like? To me, these things are a vital part of an admin's duties, and while I understand the concern of an admin only experienced with fighting vandalism, I think it's walking down the wrong path to imply that the tools are somehow "unnecessary" to combat vandalism.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 46) Support - I am confident that you would make a good admin with plenty of experience, kind nature and great work in fighting vandalism, which will be further improved if you are given the tools. Camaron1 | Chris 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) Support per above. "Aargh! not enough user talk edits!" is not a sufficient reason to oppose an otherwise good candidate. At least not for anyone who's ever seen CAT:CSD on a bad day. Waltontalk 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Support per above. This user's prolific edits to wikipedia set a benchmark for all other users to follow in my opinion. This user is one of the best editors wikipedia currently has and should definitely be promoted to an administrator because with such privileges this user would no doubt improve wikipedia.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 49) Support After reviewing your contributions I feel confident that you are trustworthy, competent and capable of handling the mop. --Ozgod 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 50) Support A fine candidate. Professor marginalia 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 51) Support, sheesh, why do people oppose productive vandal fighters just because they're vandal fighters? Wizardman  23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I'm concerned about promoting users who have focused exclusively on fighting vandalism, and in particular I'm concerned about the relatively low talk contributions: 689 to article talk in two years, compared to over 15,000 article edits (presumably mostly reverts). It suggests low community interaction. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, poor experience dealing with this user. He rigidly enforces WP:CHARTS, which was in fact only decided on by a handful of users with similar views. Everyking 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SlimVirgin and Everyking. —AldeBaer 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per SlimVirgin. I think fighting vandals is a noble cause.  You don't need admin privileges to do that.  I want admins to be a part of the community and this candidate, with so few interactions on the talk pages, it doesn't seem like they are part of the team.  But I wouldn't want Ericorbit to stop reverting vandals.Orangemarlin 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The two most important qualities in an admin are a stong grasp of policy and administrator responsibilities and the experiance and ability to interact successfully with the community under the worst of conditions. This user's edit history and answers in this RfA so not assure me of him having either. In addition to these red flags I don't see any need for the tools. While vandal fighting is important and often thankless it is not a task that requires administator tools. NeoFreak 04:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose because SlimVirgin said so Changed to neutral.
 * That sounds heartfelt and intellectually confident. —AldeBaer 12:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * About as intellectually confident as 'support - a great candidate', hmm? :) Riana ⁂  13:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was thinking in the direction of WP:POINT. —AldeBaer 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you opposed for exactly the same reason... – Gurch 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, I just remembered your !voting escapades during a recent RfA and admittedly interpreted it as a pointy comment. Sorry for that, striking my own comments. —AldeBaer 16:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair both to the candidate and to the editors just above here, a support !vote without additional comment is normally taken to mean per nom. But an oppose really requires a stated reason. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume the opposer in question opposed per slimvirgin, though it would help he if eleborated more.  Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it probably wouldn't, since when I try to elaborate more it usually produces this sort of thing. But... well, 689 article talk edits. I mean, that's less than 700. And 700 isn't exactly a lot. Well, if I tell you to go away and make 700 article talk edits right now, you'd probably think it was a lot, but this is an adminship candidate we're talking about here – they must be perfect in every way. 689 out of 18698 – that's less than four percent. Less than four percent. I mean, can you even imagine such a thing? This user has been editing articles without discussing their changes first – such bold behaviour is completely against the rules. And quite apart from that, I keep hearing stuff about some "vandal fighting" that this user has been doing. Clearly adminship is not necessary for it. Whatever it is. Sounds scary, to be honest, so I'm glad we've got someone doing it. Though it must be pretty useless, as doing it seems to wreck your chances of passing an RfA. And it seems to be done rather a lot. Perhaps we should draft a new policy banning it? Would be great, having all those extra people helping write articles, wouldn't it? – Gurch 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per SlimVirgin. Adminship is not necessary for the use of "vandal fighting". — N96 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly isn't. Vandals just block themselves, after all. And why would we use rollback when we have JavaScript kludges that drain server resources instead? – Gurch 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per SlimVirgin and Everyking. I'm not persuaded that this editor has enough experience of community interaction, nor that admin tools are needed for the tasks intended. I would like to consider a fresh nomination in the future after this editor has wider experience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too little experience in community interaction and project-space for me to feel comfortable giving candidate the mop. A few more months of solid wiki-gnomery could do wonders here. Xoloz 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't think I can support this user just yet, as per Xoloz, BrownHairedGirl, etc. Oppose for now. DS 22:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This user hasn't demonstrated that they can apply discretion to decisions, and deal with complex disputes with non-vandals, sufficiently for my liking.  Daniel  23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Slim Virgin's first part: just way way way too few talk page edits. Discussing issues with others when writing articles via committee is critical to keep the crap low.  Even if all you do is revert vandalism, oftentimes vandals need talk page info, or directed to talk pages, particularly when borderline.  However, I don't disagree with admin tools being given to someone who mostly fights vandals, that's a tough and thankless task.  Simply add more talk page edits, a lot more, please. KP Botany 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Editcountitis.  Majorly  (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not about raw numbers, it is about such a low percentage of talk page edits, less than 1% 5%. Talk pages are useful to making Wikipedia go smoothly, to ensuring that issues don't arise, that things are settled without edit wars, that seeming vandals are given opportunities to add to Wikipedia.  KP Botany 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How did you divide 689 into 18698 and come up with less than 1%? I got 3.68%... – Gurch 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I meant less than 5%, made a comment about it ought to be 50%, edited out a comment about less than 10% and came up with less than 1%. Thanks for the correction, it's still incredibly low for talk page participation.  I think this is where folks who do mostly vandal patrol can show that there is a place as an administrator for vandal oriented admins: by using article talk pages.  They're incredibly important and incredibly underused by a lot of Wikipedians.  KP Botany 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - per others here. Vandal fighting is fine, but admins need to have experience in interacting on Talk pages and creating real articles. Crum375 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No they don't.  Majorly  (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Majorly and I have a habit of biting each other, but here I agree with him absolutely. Also, the tendency of so many editors to oppose merely because a well-known editor has done so demonstrates once again the increasingly obvious fact that WP:RfA is broken.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, Anthony. People are voting and commenting as they see fit. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I meant no offence to you or to any other editor, and if I have given offence I apologise most sincerely. My point, which perhaps I expressed badly, was I would like to see comments, either opposing or supporting, based on the work of the candidate, rather than on opinions already expressed by other editors about the work of the candidate. I always try to follow WP:AGF. Please don't shout at me.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To suggest with out some logical expanation that others, such as myself, are using anything but there own reason and concepts of a what they think a admin should or shouldn't be is disruptive and presumptuous. If you reviewd my RfA contributions you would find that your statment is made in ignorance of my editing history. Take the whining elsewhere. NeoFreak 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that your !vote is elaborated in detail specifically excludes it from my comment.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Xoloz -- Y not? 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I object, per the above. Lack of interaction, lack of experience, as evidenced e.g. by this and this edit summary.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per this edit I have concerns regarding OWN and BITE and rejection of BRD. --After Midnight 0001 18:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Concerned about extremely low level of interaction with other editors. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose A review of recent contributions shows a regular failure to warn users when vandalism is reverted. User needs experience of adhering to the escalation process far more closely, before they get the block button. TigerShark 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The edit summary: DO NOT make changes to a guideline without discussion first. There's 2 things wrong about that, first the editor didn't make a change to a guideline, he just changed an example used it illustrate the guideline, and secondly he decided to yell at the editor over a pretty minor change. I don't know if there's WP:OWN issues going on but we need fewer admins that yell first instead of more.  RxS 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per all above concerns. More community interaction needed, as well as wider focus beyond vandal fighting. Singopo 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Changed from oppose; candidate has redeemed themselves by turning out not to be a banned user in disguise after all. Would like to support, but social pressures prevent it. Candidate is advised to immediately set about making as many talk-space edits as possible, in order to prove to SlimVirgin the community (but especially SlimVirgin) that they are not a sockpuppet. (Hey, remember the old days when we had this thing called "Assume good faith"? Good thing we got rid of that silly idea...) – Gurch 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity - what social pressures prevent you from supporting? Are you also suggest that the nominee canvass to promote the fact that they are not another suspected banned user? --Ozgod 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - leaning towards support. I am not sure about the amount of community interaction as outlined above, but apart from that, I see no reason to oppose. Anyway, I am sure he can be trusted, and we need more admins. Stwalkerster  talk 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.