Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guoguo12


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

Guoguo12
'''Final (18/19/8); ended 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) - Nomination withdrawn. - –MuZemike 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Hi, I'm Guoguo12 and I had not planned to attempt an RfA this early, but here goes. I have been Wikipedia actively for over half a year now, and in that time, I have become familiar with Wikipedia's policies, made some new friends, and learned a lot of stuff I had never heard of before. While I started out by making minor edits like adding refs. and fixing layout, I eventually discovered the pleasure of anti-vandalism work, and to this day, I have made over 2,000 anti-vandal edits, and I am a fluent user of both Twinkle and Huggle. Besides anti-vandal work, I have created three articles, two of which were featured on DYK. In addition, I have commented on various articles at AfD, and have worked in NewPages patrolling and hence have experience with deletion criteria and notability criteria. I have also worked temporarily at AfC and, more recently, as a writer for The Signpost. While I hope that some of you take it into consideration, I do not expect to be cut any slack because there have been no successful RfAs this month; I'm doing it for the experience for the comments, and my failure would be equally as productive as my success. Thanks and happy holidays! Guoguo12 --Talk--  23:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (self-nomination). I withdraw my nomination.


 * In the past three days, I have received many different opinons regarding both my lack of experience and the lack of need for experience, and I would like to thank the RfA community for its input. I most certainly will aim to improve in the areas needed, especially in the content improvement area, although I will try to keep up some anti-vandal work. This having been said, I aim to return to RfA in six to eight months, hopefully with two or three GAs under my belt and a year's worth of active editing. To quote the closing line from Redthoreau's poignantly brilliant RfA withdrawl statement, "To those who granted me their support or [...] to those who opposed me after careful and honest deliberation, I apreciate your time, effort and consideration." Adieu, adieu, but not for long—I shall return. Happy New Year to you all, and may the New Year bring RfA back to life. Note: I absolutely do not blame my failure on the RfA system, but like the global warming crisis, you cannot deny that RfA has changed in the past several years. Why it's changed is the issue, along with how these changes are shaping RfAs today. But the blame rests on me, not the community, not the !voters. If the RfA system shall not change, I'm okay with that. I will change—change until I meet the modern standards for adminship, whatever these standards are. Guoguo12  --Talk--  02:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intent to use my admin tools (if granted, obviously) to help reduce backlogs at AIV, as well as backlogs of pages tagged for speedy deletion. I would also like to help close AfDs and manage Prodded articles. From there, I could eventually branch out into other tasks like managing ANI and such. Despite my admin capabilities, I would continue with normal reversion work with Huggle or Twinkle, perhaps writing a new article every now and then.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I consider my latest DYK, Virginia Street Bridge, to be my best article creation, as it provides good coverage of the subject and is accompanied by images, an infobox, decent references, etc. As for other minor edits, I am proud to have made detailed revisions to Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia so as to completely reform the myriad of poorly formatted references. As with many other vandal fighters, many of my best revisions are minor. As corny as it sounds, I try to treat every edit with utmost care and consideration for consequence, and often find myself clicking "Cancel" rather than "Save" when my revisions disappoint myself.


 * 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: Conflicts? Yes. Stress? No. Perhaps one of my greatest faults is my refusal to give in, as demonstrated at Articles_for_deletion/Curse_of_Mike_Hart, and while this has led to a few long drawn-out discussions, it has not led to much stress. After all, each user is entitled to his or her opinion, and most users at AfD comment the way they do because the believe it is better for Wikipedia and complies better with the policies of Wikipedia.


 * Additional optional question from The Utahraptor
 * 4. How would you handle a situation like this, where a user attempts to single out other users as "whiners"?
 * A: Quite an interesting situation indeed, as the user was angry enough to fill half of the page with insults, sarcasm, and smart alec scrutiny. While arguably mild in manner, singling out a group of users as "The Whiner's" [sic] and following it up with an opinionated, detailed analysis of each user's mistakes is hardly walking the line between a personal attack and suggesting improvements/abiding by AFG. Incivility should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Anyway, I would have brought this up at either WP:WQA or WP:ANI, preferably the latter, since the user seems to have repeatedly reacted with questionable civility (e.g.,). Unsurprisingly, the user was blocked, and I heartily approve. Guoguo12  --Talk--  01:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Morgankevinj
 * 5. Do you use a strong password or if not will change your password to meet these guidlines before you become an admin? (Yes or No answer is okay, to maintain some privacy)
 * A: Yes, I do use a strong password (i.e., random gibberish composed of mixed lowercase and uppercase letters as well as numbers). I also intend to change my password every month or two if I become an admin. I understand that security is an important issue here, and although almost nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible, a hacked admin account poses a great threat to both the project's content and its portrayal in the media (the latter being especially important because Wikipedia is donation-funded). This having been said, if my account is ever compromised, it should be indef. blocked immediately, as per WP:BP.

General comments

 * Links for Guoguo12:
 * Edit summary usage for Guoguo12 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted on the talk page. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support. Answer to Q4 tells me that this user is experienced enough to handle the sysop tools, but the issues stated in the oppose section concern me. Not enough to make me change my vote to oppose or neutral, but enough to only weak support. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 01:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I read the opposes, and while I like seeing good content contributors, it's not really that necessary for the field of adminship he plans to work in (CSD/AIV), and I don't see anything egregiously wrong with his understanding of policy in those fields, so I'll support.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, will put the deletion tools to good use. Sumsum2010 · T · C  03:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A fine candidate. No red flags here.-- White Shadows Those Christmas lights 05:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support – I don't mind the lack of content work, as not all editors are artists. Strong anti-vandal fighter will benefit Wikipedia as an admin. — mc10 ( t / c ) 05:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Since you plan to be mainly active in counter-vandalism, I see no reason for you to have a strong history of content creation. I think that the opposers should stop over-valuing adminship and realise that it is not some reward for being active in all areas of the encyclopedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I see an excellent editor, with a good grasp of how Wikipedia works, and an ability to work collaboratively. I do not find any of the "oppose" arguments convincing. Yes, there is a limited amount of content work, but so what? There is enough to see that the candidate knows what is useful, and the candidate's main contributions are in areas where being an admin would be relevant and helpful. I am confident that we have here an editor with the potential to be a very useful administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per JBW. None of the opposes convince me to join them, and no evidence has been presented that promoting the user would do harm to the project.  D  C  21:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per DC.  WAYNE  SLAM  23:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I think the candidate would do a good job as an administrator. I base that in part on his seeming to know where his current areas of expertise lie, and his intention to focus as an admin on those areas first, and expand to others gradually. That being said, it seems unlikely that this RfA will reach consensus to promote, based on the numbers to date and the matters raised below. It might be in the candidate's best interest to withdraw this RfA soon, and reapply later after he's addressed some of the opposers' concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think I'll let the RfA run maybe a day longer to see if anybody has any other concerns for me to address before my next RfA. Guoguo12  --Talk--  02:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I believe that the candidate has the right mindset to edit and the right mindset to learn. Looking at my own experience and at the experience of others, that's all that makes a good admin.  bibliomaniac 1  5  09:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per Newyorkbrad, per JamesBWatson, per bibliomaniac.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't think the candidate should withdraw this RfA before the seven day period is over. As the candidate has understood logically, this will allow the maximum editors to provide their views on what areas need to be improved.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No red flags. --Banana (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per the "haven't done anything wrong, you seem to understand the main policies, and you're capable of engaging in debates about deletion intelligently" part of Trebor's oppose. extransit (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Content contributions in no way indicate your trustworthiness as an admin. Since adminship is no big deal I heartily support. Basket of Puppies  04:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per answers to questions 1,4 and 5. Morgan Kevin J (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Willing to take on admin tasks and there is nothing here which really alarms me. It has been pointed out that content creation experience is light, but the record there isn't empty either. While I agree that a little experience in content creation (which can consist of improving articles as well as initiating new ones) is usually needed to demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia's content policies and empathy with content writers, I cannot see that the candidate is deficient in that area. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Not nearly enough content experience; less than 100 edits to article talk pages indicates a lack of collaboration on articles. You've only been active seven months and many of your edits are automated. The "Well then, go ahead and disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. 'Tis the season to be jolly, after all." on your talk page doesn't inspire me at all, either. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you didn't catch it, but it's sarcasm. Your first argument concerning collaboration is most certainly legitimate, though. Guoguo12  --Talk--  01:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too many automated edits for me and not enough content work. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The candidate has clearly stated that his main areas of attention as an admininstrator would be countervandalism. Please explain to me what content improvement has to do with that area. Are you telling me that adminship is some trophy for being active in all areas of the encyclopedia? Countervandalism is just as important as content improvement, and in fact uses more tools in the sysop group than content improvement does. Additionally, he has never abused these automated tools, so how are they a problem? You have yet to demonstrate why the candidate is not a good choice for holding sysop rights and using them for countervandalism. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose, close to a neutral. There is a heavy focus on anti-vandalism work, and a lack of real content creation (or engagement in sustained discussions about content). That said, you haven't done anything wrong, you seem to understand the main policies, and you're capable of engaging in debates about deletion intelligently. I'm sure you could use the tools valuably in the narrow area you tend to work, but I haven't seen enough to be sure you could use them properly outside of those areas. If you gain some wider experience and come back in a few months, I'd probably support. Trebor (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as per Fetchcomms. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose with no prejudice to the editor WP:NOTNOW applies. Help write a "Good article" or even better a featured article and some WP:DYKs under your belt then come back. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I assume you meant a few more DYKs, as the candidate has stated that they have created two DYKs. Agree with your comments about GAs and FAs though. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The candidate has clearly stated that his main areas of attention as an admininstrator would be countervandalism. Please explain to me what content improvement has to do with that area. Are you telling me that adminship is some trophy for being active in all areas of the encyclopedia? Countervandalism is just as important as content improvement, and in fact uses more tools in the sysop group than content improvement does. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the two DYKs, a few in my book reuquires a two or three more. I have little doubt "counter vandalism" will be the main area of work and that is "just as" important.... but being a collaborative project requires Collaboration. Counter vandalism often times means very little experience in critical thinking, consensus building, or dispute resolution. I do not mean the editor does not have these skills its just harder for me to judge when i dont see activity in those areas. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose Highly active since June 2010, the candidate has only 3 article creations and 13 redirects. On the positive side, the three articles are well-referenced, solid examples of how it should be done. You are on the right path. Mentoring, more collaboration, more content-building and in six months, you'll be a shoo-in.--Hokeman (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose However, you are on the right track. We're all on a learning curve, and it took me two tries to get the mop. I think you'll make a fine admin in the very near future, and your history suggests that you'll continue to learn, grow, and (I hope) try again soon. Hiberniantears (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose WP:NOTNOW - Nothing wrong so far, more experience needed, but (from one who knows...) don't rely on Huggle and Twinkle to bump up your edit count, it already stands at 45% of your edits, too high percentage here can go against you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Per above.  Concerns with experience. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. I'm a bit uncomfortable with any editor who's been active less than a year being given the mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Fetchcomms and other time-related concerns. One two three... 02:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose as per Fetchcomms. Also, poor response to constructive criticism given by Fetchcomms "Sorry if you didn't catch it, but it's sarcasm"; silly vandalism with disingenuous edit summary and earlier posting of personal information of a minor on user talk page - removed on March 8, 2010. All in all, probably a good editor, but needs maturity and experience before being given the mop. KeptSouth (talk) 09:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am opposing too, but I would just like to point out that Guoguo did not vandalize. He began editing this vandalized revision after removing the IP's previous vandalism, then Falcon8765 reverted the new vandalism, and then Guoguo saved his fix of the heading and unfortunately re-added the vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out my error. It looks like the apparent vandalism was due to an edit conflict. Though I looked at the subsequent edits, I did not see this or look back far enough. Apologies to Guogu12, he did not vandalize.KeptSouth (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose - I would like to see a few more DYK/ITN or a good article. (A good article especially shows you have "stick-with-it-ness".) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose unlike certain editors above me I'm not concerned that you don't currently have a GA, Virginia Street Bridge alone is enough to differentiate you from the "pure vandal fighters" who we occasionally still see at RFA, a GA or FA would be impressive, but is not essential for adminship. Nor am I opposing because you have only been active 7 months, especially as you opened your account in 2008 and had a trickle of edits before the 7 months. But I'm concerned that you aren't quite there yet with your CSD tagging. Going through your deleted contributions I see just in the last ten days two A3 tags such as thisin the same minute as the article was created, and one after just three minutes. Most of the tags I checked were correct, especially the G10s. But I'm not happy with you having the delete button until you've learned why special:newpages warns not to tag articles as A1 or A3 within minutes of creation. I'd be happy to consider you again in three or four months, and suggest installing hotcat and working on the basis of "if in doubt categorise it rather than tag it".  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  23:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Shows poor judgement. Advise to wait at least six months and open an editor review before next RfA.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, concerns about lack of experience, particularly in areas of quality improvement and writing related to content. -- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, sorry not enough content contributions. Admins need to understand the effort that goes into writing quality articles. People come here to read these. Yes it might be a place to make friends, but this is not Facebook. Graham Colm (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, but what exactly do you mean to convey through the last sentence, "Yes it might be a place to make friends, but this is not Facebook." How exactly does that tie in with content contributions? Guoguo12  --Talk--  22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I think a bit more experience is needed; there is nothing wrong with what you have done.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 21:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I appreciate your openness and honesty here. But you simply don't have enough experience.  You seem like a net benefit to the community.  Keep working!  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Not going to throw snowball at you (even though there's plenty of snow outside). Your first sentence in your nomination statement "...I had not planned to attempt an RfA this early" is essentially correct. Get more experience (particularly on content-writing and less on automated processes) before coming  back. I would suggest you to withdraw now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral – I don't see anything in your contributions that makes me oppose; However, I can't give you my support. You seem to be viewing adminship as a trophy to capture. This is not a good thing. I'm sorry, but you just don't have enough experience for me to support you. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support, but Neutral. From my limited interactions with the nominee, I believe he will be a fine admin one day - unfortunately, today is not that day. :( Just wait a few months, and I'm sure you'll do fine.  Nolelover  It's football season!  21:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - Not convinced the candidate has a thorough-enough knowledge of difficult policy areas.  Would appreciate more detail in answers to q's.   The Interior (Talk) 00:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Has the right attitude, and I don't mind anything over six months, so the time doesn't bother me, and I don't mind the low article contribution count, everyone works in different ways, but still, but I can't bring myself to support. I guess part of the issue is that the candidate isn't flushed out, he hasn't defined his scope or his niche very well, especially where it comes to how he is going to use the mop. Not anything to cause me to oppose, I can't bring myself to support. I suppose if this RfA doesn't scare you off, I'd be inclined to reexamine your credentials in six months, if you so choose.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) This user isn't ready yet, but I hope to see him back when he's written a reasonable amount of content and can demonstrate experience with dispute resolution and contentious articles.— S Marshall T/C 11:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask again, how does content improvement have anything to do with countervandalism, and how does it relate to an admin candidate who has specifically stated that the primary area he will be working in is countervandalism? Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators can develop new areas of interest after passing their RFA, and there's no way to restrict their use of the tools. Admins have tenure and there's no reasonable way to get rid of a bad one.  That means we need to see how they act in a wide variety of situations before we can support. Countervandalism's an important function that I don't want to denigrate, but compared to writing content it's an easy way to rack up a lot of edits, without necessarily showing sufficient evidence of mature judgment in the process.  It also involves deletion, and nobody's fit to delete material they think is bad faith unless and until they've learned to understand the position of good faith content contributors.  The only way to do that is to write a decent amount of content, ideally in contentious areas so the administrator can show they know how to handle work at the sharp end.— S Marshall  T/C 16:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, content improvement does not require sysop tools. Additionally, when determining which pages this user would delete you only need to look at what he's tagged for deletion - that gives a much better indication as to his judgment skills than seeing him writing a whole bunch of articles. Understanding how to write an article is indeed important when tagging pages for deletion, however, the candidate has demonstrated that he understands this. If he didn't, I'd be opposing per a large number of incorrect tagging. Experience for deleting articles comes from participating in the deletion process, not writing content. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again. Administrators can develop new areas of interest after passing their RFA, and there's no way to restrict their use of the tools.  Admins have tenure and there's no reasonable way to get rid of a bad one.  That means we need to see how they act in a wide variety of situations before we can support.  Given this candidate's relative lack of contributions you aren't realistically going to be able to convince me to change my position on that, I'm afraid, Ajraddatz.— S Marshall  T/C 19:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care what your stance is on this RfA. I do care that you, and many other people are finding some magical relation between content improvement and countervandalism. Yes, once he is an admin he could get involved in different areas. If you don't trust him to do a good job in those areas, fine. That is your opinion. But as I have said above, content improvement does not require or use sysop tools. It might be a good idea to provide an example of an area of the encyclopedia that he might become active in which has some use for sysop tools, and he is not currently experienced in. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * S Marshall has expressed his views very well (and they mirror my own). Your main question seems to be "what's the relation between content writing and countervandalism?" There is none. But nobody has claimed there is. What we're saying is that, although his main focus would be antivandalism, there's no restriction to the tools - admins can, and do, move into any area they want to. This means we want to see evidence that they are capable of dealing properly with trickier situations - and the trickiest situations almost always involve content disputes which get out of hand. BLPN, page protection, ANI - these are all areas which can need sysop tools, and he hasn't (yet) shown he'd be capable of using them in those kinds of situations. Trebor (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is what content improvement has anything to do with this. How does improving a page related to page protection, or especially ANI? I'm not saying that the candidate has all the experience required to be an admin - perhaps he doesn't. But I am tired of people using lack of content improvement as an opposing/neutral reason, because it isn't. It has nothing to do with anything here. None of the trickier situations have anything to do with content improvement, and that is what I am trying to say. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A good admin who considers protecting a page should know the difference between a heated but ultimately constructive content dispute, and an unproductive edit war. They should know whether protection will help defuse frayed tempers, or inflame an already tense situation. A good admin can detach issues over content from issues over conduct, regardless of their own opinion on either. A good admin will have experience of many different kinds of situation, and a sense for what will work and what will not in a given case. There is not a big black line dividing a good decision from a bad decision, it is a sliding scale, and a good admin will be able to deal with the subtleties. I think (and I'm not alone) that experience of working in content (which, remember, is Wikipedia's output to the world) is essential to develop these skills. That you cannot understand these situations if you haven't been one of those editors, arguing your point of view in spite of opposition. If you disagree, that's your prerogative, but we believe content is important. Trebor (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. WP:NOTNOW. Don't want to pile onto opposes. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I cannot find any negative reasons to oppose, but I do feel that the candidate would benefit from more all-round experience and more participation in Wikipedia semi-admin areas (particularly, but not only, AfD) before being ready for the mop. Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2010 (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.