Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 3


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

Hdt83
FINAL (23/21/12); withdrawn by candidate 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

- Hello, my name is Hdt83 and I have been on Wikipedia since September 2006 but was not really active until the beginning of this year. With almost 11500 edits on Wikipedia, I know a lot about how Wikipedia works and its policies/guidelines. I have contributed to many areas of the encyclopedia including removal of vandalism, articles for creation, afds, GA review, user warnings, and the help desk. --Hdt83 Chat 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw my rfa. It is clear that making this rfa was a bad decision and I should have waited longer. Thank you to all the people who participated in the disscussion. --Hdt83 Chat 21:24, 7 August 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 optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: There are many areas on Wikipedia that I intend to help out as an admin. One is at WP:AIV where I would block vandals from disrupting Wikipedia after being warned. Another area would be at CAT:CSD. CSD has one of the worst admin backlogs on Wikipedia and I want to help tackle the backlog. In addition, I would also close afds when they end, and protect/unprotect pages at WP:RFPP.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have several contributions to Wikipedia that I am proud of. I am proud of two articles that I worked on which attained GA status, Crater Lake and Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. I am also pleased with helping out at WP:AFC and clearing out the backlog. As many know, AFC has one of the worst backlogs of all the backlogs on Wikipedia. The third thing that I take pride in is my vandal-fighting work.


 * 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 have not been in any huge conflicts that caused me stress. If I was in a heated debate that resulted in conflict, I would ask the opinions of another editor before proceeding. If that does not help than I would back off from the conflict and let it cool down before resuming discussions.


 * Optional question from Giggy  Talk
 * 4. Could you please explain why your userpage is semi-protected?
 * A: I requested it to be protected as it was getting vandalized frequently by vandals. See WP:PROT. --Hdt83 Chat 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a jerk about this, but could you please provide some specific diffs please? Thanks,  Giggy  Talk 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ,, , , . --Hdt83 Chat 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. Giggy  Talk 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Pascal
 * 5 I also don't want to be a jerk about it but a number of people indicated in the last RfA that they'd rather see you wait more than a month after a failed RfA. Why did you then decide to run now? And more importantly, do you feel that you have addressed some specific concerns that were raised in the first two RfAs? Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I have decided to run now because people can improve in a short time and I have gained considerable knowledge of WP policies since my last rfa. With AIV and CSD being frequently backlogged, I want to help tackle the backlog which keeps growing as time passes. The main concern in my previous rfas was civility. I think that the civility issue was an example of exaggerating the situation since there was only one example of incivility that occurred and a lot of people opposed because of that. Since my previous rfas, I have improved my behavior substantially and have been very nice and AGF with everybody I meet as shown when I welcome new users and continually helped others as evidenced with my contributions at the help desk. --Hdt83 Chat 01:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Vodak
 * 6. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?
 * A I believe this is what you're looking for. Pascal.Tesson 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Spebi
 * 7. What are your thoughts on the current RFA system, and if you could apply changes, what exactly would those changes be? – sebi 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A

General comments

 * See Hdt83's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Hdt83:
 * Deleted contribs: 50 most recent go back to 8 June 2007. One article created from Articles_for_creation/2007-06-10 that was deleted via prod.  Otherwise generally speedy deletion taggings in the 100 most recent. GRBerry 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hdt83 before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support. You know what we are about, and what we are for. You will therefore make a great admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) But of course. A great user who's really put in the hard yards.  Giggy  Talk 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I don't remember if I supported last time, but I recall doing an editor review that did not raise any serious problems for me. The advice to wait a little longer before the next application should be taken to heart. Shalom Hello 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I really admire the determination and courage of this user to run for adminship one month after a failed nomination. It shows that this candidate is willing to improve the scope of this project. I also believe that this candidate would not abuse the admin tools given to him as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good user. Answers to questions are good, and Q5 is fine by me. PeaceNT 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Loud Support I see nothing recent to suggest that this very experienced editor shouldn't be trusted with the extra tools.  The objections seems to mainly be these two:
 * 7) Too keen.  Surely that's a good thing?  We need people who are keen to attack the backlogs.  RfA candidates are stuck between a rock and a hard place.  If they don't seem to want the tools people oppose because they say they don't need them.  If they do seem to want the tools they're opposed for being too keen.
 * 8) Too soon.  Whether or not the other RfAs were recent, the question we need to answer is whether Hdt83 can be trusted with the tools.  I can't see any evidence to suggest otherwise.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 08:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support- really good user that I trust. -- Boricua  e  ddie  13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support- because now it's even. Just watch the edit summary usage. :) Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support solid work so far, but get rid of the red edit summaries. Bearian 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Moral support- Anthony.bradbury said it best. —AldeBaer 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. "Too keen" is an inadequate reason to oppose - it's possible to be keen to become an admin in order to help the project. WaltonOne 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support No big deal. A.Z. 20:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I'm going to support because (1) Hdt83 is ready for the tools, and (2) Adminship is no big deal. —  «  A NIMUM   »  20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support There is not much point waiting for waiting's sake. I do not find any evidence of incivility at a cursory examination of Hdt83's contribs since the first RfA and considering that the only concern in the first RfA was a single instance and not a pattern of incivility, I am going to support, although I do not see what the hurry is in becoming an admin. I agree with Anthony.Bradbury on that point. - Two  Oars  21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support the short space between RfA's doesn't bother me at all, however, it does bother other users. I strongly suggest Hdt83 wait for about three months or so before trying again to avoid opposition over short-times between RfAs. Acalamari 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) He seems quite qualified for the job. I sense no ill intention and good will to the encyclopedia.  Marlith   T / C  00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - Almost every oppose seems to be about the amount of time since the last RfA, which seemed to be the same case for that one. It's been over 2 months since the first RfA where it seemed the only real concern was one somewhat incivil, inappropriate diff. Considering the 11,500+ edits over various areas of the encyclopedia and the fact that it appears that he has learned from his mistake, I must support.  Lara  ♥Love  04:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - I don't see any reason for keeping this editor in the penalty box for several more months. The original RfA revealed no major problems apart from one incivility mistake, which the editor seem to have learned from.  henrik  • talk  08:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. LaraLove said it for me. -- DS1953 talk  18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - this experienced editor is qualified for the tools at this time. The oppose comments are focused almost entirely on the timing of the RfA rather than the candidate's current qualifications, and therefore are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) The concerns of the opposers are that he reapplied too quickly, but that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I am not going to oppose an RfA when I don't see any evidence that the user will abuse the tools. You seem to be a fine user.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support No evidence of any misunderstanding of policy, plenty of edits with good experience in all areas. No reason to oppose.  Time between RfA's is a petty factor. --  P.B. Pilhet  01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) (Moral?) Support I have no problem with what I've seen from the user. Looking at the oppose votes, very few seem to be based on the opinion that Hdt83 would not make a good administrator. This RFA does seem destined to fail based on the time since the last RFA, so clearly the community is going to require you to wait at least several months before another attempt. Have patience, and maybe a cup of tea, and things will take care of themselves.  Citi Cat   ♫ 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose


 * Weak oppose... All other issues aside, your last RfA ended less than a week ago. Seriously, what's the rush? Grand  master  ka  01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was more then a month ago ;) Giggy  Talk 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you're right. Retracting, at least for now. Grand  master  ka  01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Your last RfA ended about a month ago, and the one before that only a month before the last one. I think you are over eager to get the tools.  T Rex  | talk  01:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, excuse me, but what is the problem with over-eagerness? If there is no evidence of misuse, I implore you to retract that vote. —  «  A NIMUM   »  02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with eagerness. There's no reason not to trust someone who wants the tools with the tools. Then again, I think we should make some people that don't want the tools have them anyway. I always wondered why the candidates had to accept the nomination for the RfA to proceed. A.Z. 02:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, especially when it goes against advice that was given last RfA to wait longer.  T Rex  | talk  16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So the reason why it's especially bad that they be eager is that you people already said last RfA that being eager is bad. A.Z. 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No it is bad because he was told to wait at least 3+ months again before having his next RfA and he clearly didn't take that advice seriously or else we wouldn't be here.  T Rex  | talk  23:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that that's good advice that should be taken seriously. A.Z. 01:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel as if this is the third time I've seen this RfA in the last two months.  Last time, one of the main concerns was that Hdt should wait longer before applying again.  The response to this was to wait 5 weeks instead of 4.  It's longer, yes, but clearly not what people were asking for at the previous RfA.  I'll definitely be returning to this RfA to see the response to question 5 above.  If the candidate has a good reason that he ignored those concerns (and ignoring concerns is something I strongly dislike in admins), I'd be willing to reconsider my opposition. --JayHenry 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I admire your determination but you seem to power hungry. Plus it has been not long since ur last rfa. SLSB   talk ER 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Yeah, sorry, I'd give it at least two or three months between RFAs, especially if two in a row fail. Either that or don't nominate yourself. You just give me the impression of someone who thinks that the admin tools are something they can't contribute to Wikipedia without, be that because of their actual use or because of the position of power, I find that a bit worrisome. --L-- 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I am sorry to oppose again, but I do not feel you have given enough time to show you have learned from the concerns made during your previous RFA's. --Ozgod 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have already said above, the main reason I withdrew from my first rfa was due to concerns of civility. That concern was over a single silly comment that I have since regret making. The second rfa failed due to concerns of canvassing. Once again the canvassing was only one user with whom I had contact before. I have not been incivil or canvassed since these rfas as shown from my contribs. --Hdt83 Chat 03:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When I read the second rfa it appears to me that nearly every single person in the oppose section said to wait longer between RfAs, and that this was the primary reason it failed. I suggest that if this RfA fails, that advice be taken under more serious consideration. --JayHenry 04:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Needs to heed the advice from the last RfA about leaving the intervals between applications to frow larger and using that time to improve with admin-related tasks and editor interaction. (aeropagitica) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I find the answer to my question worrisome and I simply don't see the maturity level I look for in prospective admins. Pascal.Tesson 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Too many RfAs in too little time. Sorry. Captain   panda  13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per the people that have said it has been a to short of time since your last RFA. Politics rule 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Opppose User is far too new to be considered for elevation to level of administrator. - MSTCrow 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any other reason besides that? My RfA was successful when I had 6000 fewer edits than Hdt83 currently has, and he made his first edit 3 months before I did. I'm not sure what your criteria are.  Leebo  T / C  19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Elevation to level of administrator" makes it sound like such a big deal. A.Z. 04:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I agree with the people who said that the gaps between your RFA's are too short, try to wait at least 2 months before another one. - Lemonflash (chat)  00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Being an administrator is all about having the trust of the community. I seriously recommend waiting for someone else to nominate you. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose slightly as per Lemonflash. --xDanielx Talk 11:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Pascal Tesson. Depending on the circumstances, "over-eagerness" for the mop can be a sign of immaturity, of a failure to respond to criticism, and/or an inability to grasp one's own need for improvement.  Given the odd answer to Question 5, I'd say this candidate displays all these weaknesses.  There is much learning the candidates needs to do before I'd trust him/her with the mop. Xoloz 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just a silly mop. It can be used to help Wikipedia, or it can be abused, in which case it will be taken away from them anyway. There's no risk and no need for trust. A.Z. 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An incivil person with the mop (or a well-meaning, but unskilled, person who gets it too soon) can do loads of damage to community morale before the protracted process of de-adminning concludes. It's better, for the candidates and for the community, to prevent unprepared candidates from taking the mop too soon.  Prevention is easier than repairing damage after the fact.  If "adminship is no big deal", then it doesn't hurt to wait for it until one is ready. Xoloz 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Adminship is no big deal" doesn't mean that the tools are not important and that people shouldn't be hurt if they don't have it. The tools are a big deal, they matter and are important for Wikipedia. What is not a big deal is any specific user getting the tools. "Adminship is no big deal" means that we shouldn't see administrators as people with more authority and we shouldn't think that getting the tools is an award of some sort. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't be hurt if people deny you the tools. You haven't lost an award, but you have lost important tools that could help you help Wikipedia, and you have lost the chance to diminish the importance of being in the group of administrators. That's important because some specific tools being given to just a few users causes a group with more authority to emerge, which causes tension and fights and hard feelings and abuse, which would happen less often if everyone were an administrator.
 * If they deny you the tools for silly reasons, then they do think that adminship is a big deal, and you should be hurt because they thought you didn't meet their high standards and because they have degenerated the concept of adminship, which shouldn't require high standards. It's important to give the tools to as many people as possible, so no selected group of people with more authority and power emerges, so this is a truly open website, so everyone can not only edit, but also see deleted content, block vandals, unblock people who shouldn't be blocked, delete images, and avoid that a group with more authority emerges, a group where people can't get in because they're not popular, because they're new, because they have been uncivil to someone, because they broke one rule or another. Such high standards for adminship make it a big deal. A.Z. 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Friend, if a denied RfA really "hurts" a person as deeply as you seem to suggest, that person should be very thankful not to be an admin. He or she has been saved much torment; admins endure vexacious users far more hurtful than the comments on an RfA could ever be.  If an RfA sends one into despair, the temperament for adminship is probably lacking. At the very least, the person would need to understand that such criticisms are not to be taken personally. Xoloz 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with your philosophy A.L. However, that is not the situation on Wiki at the moment. Supporting all candidates for admins, including potentially damaging admins is against WP:POINT. I would support you if you wanted to write up an essay or raise a question in the proper channels about the way admins are appointed. But I can't support you here, and I think you may be diminishing your own very good arguments by presenting them in this manner. SilkTork 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's disruptive, but I'll think about that. A.Z. 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sysops can review deleted revisions, and we all know that in many cases, this contains personal and private information, deleted under WP:BLP. If that information is posted off-wiki there's absolutely nothing that can be done to undo the damage.  For this reason alone (Even if you disagree with every other point) we cannot make everyone admins. --JayHenry 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really interesting that you said that. That administrators could see deleted content was the only possible reason that I could ever imagine why not everyone could be administrators. I had said so on User:StuRat's talk page, but people (such as User:Friday or User:Rockpocket, I think, but I don't remember which) said that this was no problem. In fact, I asked on the talk page of WP:ADMIN what technical reasons stopped everyone from being administrators, since Jimbo Wales said that it was only a technical matter that the tools given to administrators were not given to everyone. Rockpocket and another user whose name I don't remember tried to, but didn't convince me that there was any technical reason. You can see the thread on the talk page. None of them, though, had said that the ability to see deleted content would be an issue. No-one until you. No-one, on any page, anywhere. At first I thought this would be a problem as well (well, at least a really good excuse not to give the tools to everyone), and the only feasible thing would be to give more innocent tools to everyone, such as blocking. I even wrote User:A.Z./Every user should be able to block other users. I hope this argument doesn't become a real issue that prevents everyone from getting the tools. So far, no-one seemed to care about deleted content. Anyway, I'm sorry you mentioned it, because, despite the fact that I don't personally mind if everyone is able to see deleted content, I have no way to fight that argument. A.Z. 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I am concerned about the diff shown in the first Rfa, coupled with the impatience shown in trying again twice more in such a short space of time against advice. The community has said no twice recently and is saying no again. I think that someone who has the balanced, mature and patient personalty required for coolly making awkward decisions would take this information on board and now take a very long break before even thinking of applying again. And perhaps wait to be nominated by someone. Applying again within the next three months might again cause people to oppose purely on those grounds. Display the patience and good judgement that is required of an admin and people might just be keener to give support. SilkTork 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per T.Rex and others. I don't see how the issues brought up by the last RFA have been resolved sufficiently, the brief time in-between this RFA and the last give me pause, and some of your catty responses to comments here all make me doubt you possess the experience and maturity to be given the tools. VanTucky  (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I am very concerned about article talk page usage. It seems like you don't communicate a lot with the community.  OhanaUnited    Talk page   12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I agree with Riana, and I don't think enough time has passed between RFAs. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) You're waiting about a month between RfAs, despite the fact that numerous people have mentioned that you need to give it more time. You really need to be more receptive to feedback, especially when you volunteer yourself for it (as happens in an RfA). Stop self-nominating every month, and concentrate on improving the project for a couple of months before coming back here. At this point, you're just pissing away any good will that you're building up. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - *sigh* Ok... Kurt's right this time. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. Hiberniantears 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Nearly a support, but I agree that the concerns brought up in your previous Rfa have not had quite enough time to have been resolved. Next time.  Jmlk  1  7  04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I think it's just a little too soon after your last RfA. If you were to give it three months and focus on the issues that you were lacking in the last one, I think you would make it without any hassle. Don't be in such a hurry. Trusilver 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Most of your speedy deletion tags are accurate and result in appropriate speedy deletion. I don't think I found any tags you placed on articles that shouldn't have been deleted, from the last few months. There were a few that had the wrong tag though (of these nonsense tags this should have been A3 and this should have been A1 or G10 note: only administators can view these diffs). It's very important that administrators delete for reasons that clearly meet the applicable speedy deletion criteria. It is important in a process sense, as well as for clearly notifying the user of what the problem with the article was. This concern along with the repeated nominations is leading me to be neutral. If you continue to appropriately tag articles for speedy deletion, I will be supportive in the future.  Leebo  T / C  17:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral You have a good, well-balanced contribution record; you have been here for about six months; and you seem to know what you're doing. But if you keep on applying every month you are just not going to get the support. If you succeed now, well good. But if you do not, leave it three months, apply then and you will cruise through. Editors need to feel that you have taken the time to learn since your last application. You may feel that you have - but it's what they think that weighs with the closing bureaucrat --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Per Anthony.bradbury. ~   Wi ki  her mit  01:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Per Anthony.bradbury. Otherwise qualified, but going up again within a month is poor judgment. Come back in a few months, and I'll support you. -- The_socialist talk? 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral - over-eager. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral - Time is too short since your last Rfa. A very good editor, but try again about a month or two. --H| H irohisat  Talk 02:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral Per Anon Dissident. Elenseel 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral, at the moment. The concerns raised by other users are a slight worry, however, I do feel that in about, let's say, November, December-ish, I'd recommend going for it around then. Don't let this neutral stance and other opposes get you down because of you applying to soon; focus on continuing your excellent work, and finding new ways to help out, that might eventually wipe out the amount of opposes on your next RFA. Kind regards, – sebi 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral, and most of what I could say it perfectly summarized by Anthony.bradbury. Give it some time. People need to see that you've grown as an editor in the time since your last RfA. But, as Spebi noted, don't be discouraged by these RfA's. Good luck on this one, but, if it fails, wait a good three months and I'm sure someone will nominate you. hmwith  talk  19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral Anthony says exactly my thoughts above. You're a very valued editor, but there's no need to be so keen to be an admin. Believe me, if you are good enough, someone will nominate you eventually. I suggest you withdraw this, as it won't pass, and wait around for a long while, or until someone offers to nominate you after a few months. And don't self nominate again as this will just annoy people. Kind regards,  Majorly  (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above 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.