Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icestorm815 2


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

Icestorm815
Final (40/13/4); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

- Icestorm has been an active Wikipedian since August 2007. He had a premature RfA, which I think he has learned from well, and is now ready for the tools. He works in lots of areas: RC patrol, requests for page protection, and various admin noticeboards where he makes generally helpful relevant comments. He also does regular article work, including copyediting and stub sorting. In all, a great candidate.  Majorly  (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Icestorm815  •  Talk  23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: As an admin, I can see myself helping out in many different areas:
 * I would help out a WP:AIV and WP:UAA, an important area to help deal with vandalism.
 * I have some experience with placing requests at WP:RFPP. I often look at the requests and learn from other administrators’ comments.
 * I’m very familiar with speedy deletion, so I would gladly help out at CAT:CSD.
 * I’ve also participated in some AFD’s, so I would help out by closing the discussions.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: In particular, I'm proud of the various clean up and organizational jobs that I have done on wikipedia. I've helped with different things, such as stub sorting and tagging articles with templates. I've also been very involved with the recent pages. Over the course of editing the wiki, I have helped tag over 800 vandalism and nonsense entries for speedy deletion. As for the mainspace, I like to do assorted improvements like adding references, creating stubs, fixing grammar and spelling mistakes, and other various tasks. Though I can't say that I have a good or featured article, I'm proud of the contributions that I have made to the wiki and I'm quite happy helping out where help is needed.


 * 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: When I'm dealing with vandalism, it can be frustrating to deal with users who vandalize the wiki. However, I'm always willing to assume good faith and educate the user on how to contribute positively to wikipedia. I always go back and remember how confusing it was in the beginning as a new user and how helpful it was for someone else to guide me along the way. I think that it's the upmost importance for administrators to serve as a role model to new and experienced users alike. Whether it's explaining how to edit a page, how to create a disambiguation,how to report vandalism, how to explain a deletion reasoning, or even just giving advice, the most important thing is to guide other users in the right direction. That little bit of encouragement might just be the reason that a user decides to stay and edit on wikipedia.

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: A block is a technical part of the wiki software that allows an admin to prevent a user or IP address to be unable to edit wikipedia. Blocks are used to prevent things such as vandalism and further edit warring. Bans are a social construct against a user from editing wikipedia. Bans can come from Jimbo, arbcom, or even the community.

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
 * A: If I disagreed with an admin over a BLP issue the first thing I would do is start a discussion with the admin. I would provide third party, reliable sources to the details in question. Above all, I wouldn't place the text in question on the mainspace or talk page until it is absolutely clear that the information is not libelous.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?
 * A: After much consideration, I have decided that I would not add myself to the category for recall. I feel that the recall process creates too much debate and drama at this point in time. I would much rather start of having a civil discussion with the user on my talk page. If that doesn't work, than I would have both of us request one or two neutral admins or experienced editors to weigh in on the issue. That way, it is easier to prevent an issue from getting out of hand and escalating more than it needs to. I will keep an open mind to the category as time progresses, because things could change in a way that makes it less dramatic.

7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?
 * A: I feel that the most important polices are the ones that deal with WP:BLP. Controversial information in a living person's article has to be sourced. If someone puts in information that isn't true, it can greatly affect the person the article is about. In extreme cases, a notable person could bring up legal issues concerning libel. It is important for admins to prevent these types of situations from occurring.

Questions from GlassCobra


 * 8. When would you delete an article on the basis of A7? When would you not?
 * A. When would an wouldn't you delete an article based on A7

I would delete an article based on A7 when the article is about a non-notable person that contains text such as, "Joe Smith is my friend". However, if the article was about a notable person, I would much rather help improve the article so that it asserts the notability, instead of deleting it.
 * 8.1 Followup, What would you do with an article that states "Joe Smith is the most amazing guy in the world." ? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A: Technically, that article does assert significance. I would place a prod on it for lack of references and lack of notability.


 * 9. How do you interpret WP:IAR?
 * A: I believe that IAR should be used to follow the spirit of wikipedia policy. If policy doesn't say that you could do something, but it makes wikipedia better, then go for it. As an admin, I wouldn't follow a strict interpretation of the rules, I would follow what is best for wikipedia. I would not use IAR to create arguments, and say "Oh, IAR says I can."


 * 10. You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What do you do?
 * A: I would discuss the block on the admin's talk page. There might be something that the other admin is aware of that I might not know of (ie: a legal threat via e-mail). I would not unblock the user unless the other admin agrees 100% with the unblock. In practically every situation on wikipedia, discussion is key.


 * Follow-up question You wrote that you "would not unblock the user unless the other admin agrees 100% with the unblock". Does this mean that if an agressive administrator has a very low threshold of blocking people and is not willing to compromise, that you will not defy that administrator?  Or will you have a different policy of ignoring an administrator if you think they are wrong? Spevw (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "A:" In that type of situation, I would ask some neutral administrators to weigh in on the situation, so a consensus could be built. I wouldn't initially unblock the user, as that would start a Wheel war.

Questions from Martijn Hoekstra
 * 11. Concerns have been raised on trigger happy reporting of usernames. What are your views on the comments made?
 * A:For the UAA reports, I feel that the reason for the edits were not because of trigger happiness, but because of a former misunderstanding of the username policy. After those reports were made two months ago, I reviewed the policies to a great extent, and now I know what I did wrong and why it was wrong. I should have addressed a concern to the user on his or her talk page instead of placing a request at UAA. I can assure you my knowledge of the username policy has improved greatly since December. An example would be where I notice a user, Taxman214, had a username similar to the Bureaucrat, User:Taxman. Instead of reporting him to UAA, I addressed the issue on his talk page, and encouraged him to get a username change.

General comments

 * See Icestorm815's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Icestorm815:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Icestorm815 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) My observations of this user have been positive. Acalamari 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Good vandal fighter.  Malinaccier (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) As nominator, duh!  Majorly  (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really Majorly? I thought it was the duty of the nominator to oppose their own candidate. :) Acalamari 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) DUH! Tim  meh  !  00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Yes Yes Yes! Tiptoety  talk 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - needs the mop.   jj137   (talk)  00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) (See below) Support per nom. Saw no incivility on talk page. Did not see any rejected CSD taggings. Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  And did not adequately check user name work. Struck support per Rspeer. Cannot emphasize how hurtful and harmful an inappropriate block could be. We must not get to trigger happy.  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * reinstated support per Q10, Q11. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Seen him clerking on WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U and is a very polite and civil editor. Would make a great admin. Good luck! Xenon54 01:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Would Will make a great admin. Very nice and polite in talk pages. Great editor! - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie  01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would? You mean will :p Tiptoety  talk 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Seen him at WP:CHU/U when I changed my username. Nice and helpful. Also a great vandal fighter. Spencer  T♦C 02:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support meets my criteria, good luck. Chetblong T  C 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose see below. --  Chetblong T  C 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Switched back to support per answer to UAA. --  Chetblong T  C 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, a quick scan of his contributions did not turn up anything negative. -Icewedge (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Vandal fighter with more than 2000 mainspace edits.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Yup, gets my support. Extremely well rounded user contributions. Learned from the premature RfA. Good show. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  C ) 07:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC) . Switching to Neutral in light of oppositions  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 08:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Rudget . 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Looking at the diffs provided by Rspeer, the CaptainMorgin report was from October, and the Biotch 71493 account was soft blocked. Also, the edits of Twong@cmmt.ubc.ca appeared to be promotional, even if the account name wasn't. Overall, I think he'll be ok. Addhoc (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Looks good to me! Gary King (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - The concerns raised in the oppose section are not enough to convince me to oppose. In my opinion, Icestorm will do just fine with the tools. Keilana | Parlez ici 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Wow just wow, those username reports are from a long time ago. The candidate has done many other constructive edits since then, and shouldn't be judged solely on some username reports that occured in October. Please judge the candidate on his general editing, not on a couple of slight errors that occured previously. We all make mistakes.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support Very few concerns per the oppose concerns but a good contributor, making me weakly support this user. NHRHS  2010   04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Re.Q&A6, the present admin recall "process" is the wrong approach to a real problem.  --  Iterator12n  <font color="Blue"> Talk 05:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per Addhoc and Ryan Postlethwaite. I understand the problems with WP:UAA - who hasn't made 2 or 3 dodgy reports in their past? I trust that Icestorm815 is now ready for the tools. EJF (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A good vandal fighter, and mistakes made 2 moths ago can feel like an eternity on Wikipedia. I believe this user I more then capable of being a good administrator. He has use for the tools, and I don't expect major problems. As long as this user realises that whacking people over the head with a cluestick might drive people away, where genuine discussion often resolves issues, success in this RfA will have a positive net effect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Excellent editor ready for the mop <b style="color:blue;">Alex</b><b style="color:red;">fusco</b><sup style="color:green;">5 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Will have learnt from his mistakes and will make a good admin. Epbr123 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Lots of potential, will learn quickly. Applaud him for honestly saying he won't join recall--it is a mess lately. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - looks good so far, opposes are entirely and fully unconvincing: "Reporting Biotch as a filthy username? Freedom hater!". The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Weakly. I encourage Icestorm that, should he be promoted, he be very cautious in areas where his involvement has raised concerns below. I'm sure that he will take these concerns in mind. If not, there will be people enough watching, I'm sure. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Great vandal fighter, will be a great admin.  Burner 0718  <sup style="color:black;">JibbaJabba!  22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. I was going to go neutral, but considering the answer to Q11, I trust the user will know better in the future and be just fine with the tools. SorryGuy Talk  23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Definitely trustworthy. May make minor missteps, but obviously has the sufficient basic know-how and good intent to be a satisfactory admin. Van Tucky 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Trustworthy. People make mistakes, thats why pencils have erasers. Twenty Years 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. An active vandal-fighting admin. That's what we need; more of those. And this one's it. THE KC (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
 * 21) Support as this user meets all my standards, although is a bit weak on building the main space. Vandal-fighting is a plus, but as I've learned, you have to be extremely careful when blocking alleged vandals.  Best of luck, this time or your next RfA. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support No one's perfect. If an editor's never messed up, that editor probably has not been incredibly involved. I still feel that Icestorm is trustworthy.  нмŵוτн τ  20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Rspeer's oppose concerned me, but you seem to have learned since then, and the responses to follow-up questions are good. If you are promoted, please be cautious about blocking, and seek advice if you are at all unsure. Rigadoun (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Even though "Biotch" just looks like Biotech to me. Solid contributions.  The answer to Q11 really makes it seem like this editor is willing to learn from mistakes, do the homework, and move on. Darkspots (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - though I hope you will address the issues of the oppose section. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support I am somewhat tentative in the face of some of the issues raised below, but on the balance feel confident enough to lend support. I like the CSD tags I'm seeing here. In deleted contributions, on the blatant hoax Cheetah Gazelle, the nom even corrected a misapplied db-nonsense tag with the more proper db-vandalism. This gives me confidence that he is, indeed, "very familiar with speedy deletion" and more importantly has thought about what the criteria mean and how to apply them. Particularly in light of Pedro's oppose below, I looked back at his contributions at ANI through mid December of 2007, and every report the nom has filed there except one he himself removed was subsequently blocked. This suggests to me that, if he has had imperfect judgment in the past, he seems to have the idea now. (The one that he removed does seem to have been an over-reaction. I'm glad he rethought that and would encourage him not to overreact in similar circumstances in the future. That doesn't strike me as a credible death threat. :)) Every name he has reported at UAA since the first of January has resulted in a block. That said, I would encourage this nom (if he receives the tools) to avoid name blocking in anything but the most clear cut circumstances, given that his report of "monosex" was only on December 24th. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Arbcom in desysopping cases has said that "occasional mistakes" are entirely consistent with the mandate of admins. All the oppose comments refer to occasional mistakes in the context of generally stellar work.  User's involvement in Articles for creation is especially praiseworthy and should continue. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not, from the reports he has made to WP:UAA. He thinks that "Monosex" is a username so "disruptive" that it needs to be blocked, someone's academic e-mail address is "promotional" (I know we discourage e-mail addresses, but a block for "promotion"?), the word "biotch" should be WP:CENSORED, and that someone registering with the name "CaptainMorgin" should be blocked for "promoting a product". I think admins should have more of a sense of perspective than that, especially when blocking is involved.  r speer  /  ɹəəds ɹ  08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Icestorm's response about unfamiliarity with the username policy: as an admin, you don't just make decisions based on policy. (Although familiarity with the policy and the issues surrounding it helps.) You also need to use common sense. Common sense tells you that, for example, someone who calls himself "CaptainMorgin" probably isn't trying to advertise a brand of rum.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In his defense, I'd consider "Biotch" to be a block-worthy username, as I can't think of a possible use for the term other than a tweaking of the word "bitch". The rest are certainly quite questionable.  Ral315 (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Username blocks are there to prevent actual disruption, not to protect Wikipedia from extremely mild curses. But I suppose this one was a poor choice to bring up, as some really do want to block usernames for being "filthy" instead of any real problem.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  09:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be that you disagree with the policy. The policy directly states that cursing is a blockable username. If you disagree with policy, fine, make your case there, but don't take it out on someone for enforcing it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it doesn't. I agree with the policy, and I disagree with people who assume the policy says things when it doesn't. This is part of my objection to Icestorm, though I appreciate that he's acknowledged that his reports were wrong. If you want to see "cursing" added as a reason to block usernames, take it to WT:U, and let's stop having this off-topic discussion here.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No! I agree with rspeers. An admin should be a bit less strict. Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I hope there's only one of me.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Rspeers cabal.  нмŵוτн τ  20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems overeager to use the block button. Admins should follow a generally conciliatory approach wherever possible. Also, not to regress into edit countitis, but article work seems a bit thin, with many minor edits (none of which are marked as such). 127 main talk edits are not exactly inspiring, either. I don't know. I'd appreciate some more experience, especially mainspace-related. There are no red flags, but we have time. User:Dorftrottel 19:16, February 15, 2008
 * Changing to abstention per AGF and AAL (assumption of ability to learn). I guess the candidate has been made aware of concerns and will take them to heart. This RfA doesn't appear to approach a consensus, but there will hopefully be a next time. User:Dorftroffel 17:42, February 20, 2008
 * 1) Sorry but oppose You seem far to "free-and-fast" with your vandalism reporting, and coupled with that being top of your list in Q1 makes me move to oppose. Remember that a perceived vandal may actually be the opportunity to greet a new editor. Sorry Pedro : Chat  20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To above opposes: Remember that reporting someone is different than blocking someone based on a report. When you make a report you are relying on a second judgment by an admin, and as everyone knows a report does not guarantee a block. I'd hesitate to oppose based on borderline reports because maybe he knew they were borderline and wanted a second opinion. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry to cut in above Pedro, but I need to say something here). If you reported someone, wouldn't you block the same name if it were reported by someone else? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true Avruch, but this editor is applying for Adminship, and until a process of "30 day admin trial" exists we must go by what we see. I feel this is no different to RfA's where the candidate has made poor CSD tags. As a non-admin they have the benefit of a "second pair of eyes". As an admin they may make unilateral decisions. My oppose is based on the fact that I believe the candidate would apply his current mindset to WP:AIV as, alas, I have no reason to believe otherwise on review of contributions. And this will create more problems than help IMHO. This oppose is, as ever, with no prejudice to a couple of months demonstration of more considered reporting and then, one trusts, a wholly succesful RfA Pedro : Chat  20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first. Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions, even since last RFA was declined. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Monosex. Need I say any more? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) - Neutral, per AGF/Q10. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Doesn't like freedom, I do. Further elaboration: this is in concurrence with rspeer and Pedro. I fear I see a general trend of eagerness take punitive action rather than problem solving. User:Krator (t c) 01:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Because of the answer to Q6. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but, Oppose - Icestorm815 has too quickly judged usernames. I, like others, fear that there is a possibility that the user might do the same when an admin. -- Chetblong <font color="#00dc64">T  C 02:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Switched back to support, per answer to UAA Question. --  Chetblong <font color="#00dc64">T  C 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Sorry, but it looks like the candidate needs some more time to hone his skills. GlassCobra 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Over-eager with his desire to block coupled with the answer to question 6 suggests this editor is not ready.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with question 6? Acalamari 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm scratching my head too. What does admin recall has to do with "over-eager with his desire to block"? <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read my reasoning again, you will see that they are separate reasons which together and independently contributed to me forming the opinion that the editor is not ready for admin tools. They do not influence each other in the way ObanaUnited interpreted them. My apologies if that was not made clear, but I thought it was. I think it is basic idea within wikipedia that almost all decisions are open to review and reconsideration. To that end, it seems to me that the extra tools administrators are given means that they should willingly allow themselves to go for Administrator Recall, as to do otherwise would help create or even strengthen (if it is already in place) the idea that such admins somehow "above the rest of us". Now, I have seen cases where admins have argued that there is nothing special about having the admin tools, but I also perceive that some seem to be unwilling to have their possession of these not-so-special extra tools openly reviewed. I think there is a mismatch there, and I am doubtful about supporting editors who do not show their complete openess to having their admin status reviewed. (The process could be a little lively for the admins concerned, but perhaps it should be, and should not be a reason to dispense with the basic openess and review approach that runs through wikipedia in this case) In the particular case of this editor, the separate reasons of having a tendency to be too quick to want to block, and the unwillingness to go for open review, though separate, have the overall effect of making me think I am no longer doubtful, but that the editor could do with a bit more time before becoming an admin. Sorry for this long reply, but I was asked to expand my reasons. I hope that, even though you may disagree with them, you can see that I have arrived at an honest opinion based on what I think is important here. 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddstretch (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Oppose for the moment. No hesitation about general suitability, but I'd like to see some evidence of constructive editing. Even if you don't have a Good Article to boast of, could you point to any article where you've made significant additions of text? If there isn't one, but you can make up this deficiency for next time, would have no problem in supporting in the future. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  12:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – Sorry – I noticed a vast majority of your edits, well over 80%, were done just over the last 3-4 months. Would like to see more experience especially  in the area of editing before haveging the privilege of deciding whether an article stays or is deleted. Shoessss | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat  15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the answer to Q8. WP:CSD clearly says, "this is distinct from questions of notability...". One of the biggest problems we have with administrators is that many don't seem to realise this speedy deletion criterion doesn't insist on notabilty. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Oppose A good user, well on their way towards becoming a great editor, but I just cannot support quite yet. Jmlk  1  7  00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Switching to neutral in light of opposition comments. Those ARE hasty trigger happy reports. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, this user obviously has his heart in the right place, but some of the points brought up in the Oppose section would indicate that this user is using policy as a replacement for common sense. A good admin needs to be capable of using both.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Neutral Good editor, but the opposing side makes one think. Jmlk  1  7  21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Switched to weak oppose.  Jmlk  1  7  00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Answers to the questions are good, but the concerns brought up by the opposes bother me. The username reports brought up were slightly less than two months ago -- I'd like to see a little more time pass without incident to see if things have settled down there.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Kim Dent-Brown (additional rationale) and your answer to Q8. Sorry, but I don't think you're ready quite yet. Daniel (talk) 10:43, 20 February 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.