Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John254 2


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

John254
Final: (21/22/5); Ended 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

- A contributor for over 18 months with over 28,000 edits, I have participated extensively in the creation of encyclopedic content, the creation of policy, and vandalism-control efforts. I would be happy to serve Wikipedia as an administrator by blocking vandals, speedily deleting pages that meet the appropriate criteria, and performing other administrative tasks. John254 18:39, 19 January 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: RC-patrol is often a time-critical task. Many acts of vandalism could be prevented if I were able to block vandals myself, rather than reporting them on WP:AIV, and if I were able to respond to reports on WP:AIV at times when the page currently receives little administrative attention.  I would also delete pages meeting the criteria for speedy deletion encountered in newpage patrol, and assist with the removal of the backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.  Due to potential destruction of encyclopedic content caused by an excessively broad interpretation of the criteria for speedy deletion, I would apply the criteria narrowly, and only in obvious cases.  This would not imply a strict commitment to a literal construction of the wording -- for instance, an article concerning someone's pet hamster without notability asserted would merit speedy deletion, though not within the letter of CSD A7.  However, I would not speedily delete any article that non-frivolously asserted the notability of its subject, or was meaningfully outside of purpose of the criterion.  It's also important to describe the purposes for which I would not use administrative tools: though I have sometimes strongly disagreed with speedy deletions and deletions as a result of AFD closures, I would not unilaterally reverse such deletions, but would raise the issue at deletion review, just as I have previously.  Also, recognizing that controversial blocks can create significant disruption, I would not unilaterally block any user if I believed that many administrators would disagree with block.  Potentially controversial blocks should be discussed at WP:AN or WP:ANI; if there is no consensus there as to the correct course of action, the matter should be referred to the Arbitration Committee for adjustment, rather than having an individual administrator take a provocative action that might start a block war. John254 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The article I created, Use of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing, represents excellent research. I have created several commonly used warning templates, such as Template:Blp0 and Template:Spam4im.  The explanation of circumstances under which significant content removals are not considered to be vandalism which I  added to Vandalism has greatly enhanced the clarity of this portion of the policy. I also wrote the "United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence" section of Anti-pornography movement, much of the "Criticisms" section in Sex-positive, as well as adding an explanation of the treatment of human sexuality in many societies predating Christian influence to Sex-positive.  I have been involved extensively in vandalism control efforts, as well as newpage patrol.  I wrote the responding to disruptive canvassing section in the canvassing guideline, and created what may be the first non-stub, WP:BLP-compliant version of Rachel Marsden. John254 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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: After I initially added the responding to disruptive canvassing section in the canvassing guideline, it was removed due to concerns relating to the first sentence in the paragraph. After reading the comments by the editor who removed the paragraph, I restored the portion of the paragraph to which no objection had been raised, then revised the first sentence to address the concern that the original formulation encouraged administrators to block users for disruptive canvassing without warning, after further discussion of the matter on the talk page.  The issue to which this question actually seems to relate is how I would respond to the reversal of my own administrative action(s), or to actions by other administrators with which I strongly disagree.  Since administrative actions are binary -- a page is either intact or deleted; a user is either blocked or unblocked -- reversals of one's administrative actions do not permit a nuanced response to the concerns that prompted the reversal (re-blocking a user for a shorter period of time is not an acceptable remedy for the reversal one's block). Therefore, if granted adminship, I would adhere to the following principles concerning the reversals of administrative actions:
 * (a) I would not unilaterally reverse administrative actions, unless they were blatantly inappropriate (for example, deletion of the Main Page, or blocking of Jimbo Wales)
 * (b) I would discuss any concerns relating to administrative actions with the administrators who implemented them and/or via appropriate fora, such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, or deletion review.
 * (c) If there were no consensus in a discussion relating to the question of whether a user should be blocked or unblocked, I would refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee for adjustment if a block of a significant length were in dispute, or simply leave the user blocked or unblocked, if the block in question was of a short duration. John254 19:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Shalom
 * 4. Exactly one year ago, you were blocked by Dmcdevit for 24 hours (see block log). What happened, and what did you learn from that incident? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A: Several days prior to the block, and for at least several months previously, the vandalism policy described "official policy vandalism" as follows"Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism."On September 3, 2006, I created a warning template for responding to violations of the "official policy vandalism" section of the policy, naively believing the clause to be enforcable. One year ago, I attempted to enforce the clause, against edits which unilaterally removed the "official policy vandalism" clause itself, without any substantive explanation.  Dmcdevit disagreed with my enforcement of the policy as written, and blocked my account to express his disagreement.  Many administrators concurred with Dmcdevit's assessment of the situation.  The lesson to be taken from the incident is that, per WP:IAR and WP:NOT Wikipedia policies can't always be construed or enforced literally, and that, in extreme cases of bad policy, enforcement of the policy under the circumstances to which it is intended to apply may be a blockable offense.  As a relatively inexperienced editor, I was unable to determine when established policy was essentially set as a trap for the unwary user.  With considerably more Wikipedia experience, I am now (hopefully) able to recognize bad policy when I see it, and even to remove the offending language from policy pages before more users get blocked for enforcing it -- see, for example. John254 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Optional question from DGG
 * 5. If you become an admin, will you enable your e-mail? Why have you not already enabled it? Sometimes an off-wiki discussion can defuse a potential quarrel on-wiki. DGG (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A: My e-mail is now enabled. John254 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

 * See John254's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for John254:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/John254 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) You seem dedicated, I've seen you before, and you've improved greatly since the last RFA. So why not? Good luck. Rudget . 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry to be the first with the cliché but - you're not one already? Orderinchaos 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support 18 months of editing... well over 19,000 edits... I see a great adminsitrator in you allready! Yoshaibo (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Qst 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Support for your massive amounts of experience and your excellent answers to the questions. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Plenty of experience. Spencer  T♦C 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per interactions. Has a good grasp of policy. --W.marsh 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A single mistake on an AfD closure is hardly grounds to oppose. In reading the ANI report, this seems like nothing more than a good faith mistake. Justin  chat 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support For this user clearly is a fine user and great contributor to this site. He makes good and valid edits and following his editing history he has a relatively good record and very fine contribs. You have my vote, John, you deserve adminship, and you're a valuable help to this site! Angela from the Blue (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Probably a little more inclusionist than me, though often with a different emphasis. But I think he's always rational about it. Good answers to the questions are free of cant and blind policy repetition. I think he';s made some mistakes, and learned from them. I expect he will continue to take problems to AN/I when warranted, rather than go off on his own about them. Personally, i think that policy pages should be discussed before being boldly changed (except in minor ways), but the present policy is that BRD applies to them as well, so the block was unwarranted. DGG (talk)
 * 11) Support Per answers + saved some good articles at DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak support Following the user's answers to above questions, I'd say he knows where he's talking about. The edits he made all look fine, and he showed the communtity he has widespread knowledge on several ocassions. I am most pleased with editors like this. I have some doubts, however. Maybe you should try again in a few months from now. I'm not sure... For now, you've got my support, and that's what counts! I might change ,y mind, but that would be gighly unlikely. Ramtashaniku (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support, good answers, thorough grasp of policy, an exemplary Wikipedian of ability and responsibility. @pple complain 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. This is tricky, since there are some Opposes below from editors I highly respect. However, as the question is now largely academic (since this will probably not pass) I'm comfortable supporting. Looking through the opposes briefly: yes, that AfD closure was questionable for a non-admin, but it wasn't actually an unreasonable close in itself. Inclusionism on AfDs is OK as long as he's willing to follow community consensus in closing them, and set aside personal opinion; note that DGG (who supported above) is an arch-inclusionist and also one of our best admins. Although I see that some people feel he's too quick to go to DRV and to be harshly critical of admin decisions, I personally think we need more editors like this, not less; all power needs to be subjected to constant scrutiny, lest it be used arbitrarily. So, with reservations, I am willing to support. WaltonOne 19:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - has experience and sound judgement, as displayed in various places. I understand iridescent's concern when citing the overturned AfD verdict, but it happened quite some time ago, and is only one of the many excellent AfD closures that I have seen performed by John254. A few wrong AfDs or DRVs incidents shouldn't come back and haunt him on an RfA at all. His deleted contributions indicates a solid record of tagging articles as speedy items. More writing work is definitely needed, but I think I can entirely trust him to use the tools well in AIV, AFD & CSDs - areas that he'd like to get involved in. - PeaceNT (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - I think has very good contributions and would make a good administrator. I liked answers to questions given, and i think has good edit summary usage. I think would contribute right a way by reverting more vandalism and blocking users that vandalize. Hatmatbbat10,a proud  Wiki ped  ian   (Talk) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong Support I don't even understand making a mistake in an AfD closure is a reason for oppose. We learn from past mistakes and experiance, and the AfD that was cited was probably a very good learning experiance for the candidate if not anything else. Also, the fact that this candidate actually actively tries to close AfD's means that he has the enthusiasm to participate in this administrative task, which is always an asset. Closing AfD, like anything else, is something that requires skill and experiance, and you can only get this experiance from actively participating in the closure of AfD's. I have no doubt that he will learn from these mistakes of the past and become a fine admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support This user seems to know what he's doing. He edits in a good way and thereby greatly contributes to this website. I do not see any reason not to place this great user in the position of administrator. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support A good editor. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support as he seems reasonable, intelligent, and experienced. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Clearly has a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, and although has undoubtedly has made many mistakes in the past, I am convinced that he recognises these and can learn from them. Good luck! MSGJ (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose This user first came to my notice following his bizarre closure of an AfD with only two "keep" comments, one of which was from the article's sole editor, for which he was then hammered at DRV and AN. Since this incident brought him to my attention, all I seem to see of him is multiple posts to DRV and AFD arguing what seems to me to be an ultra-extreme "keep everything" approach (1, 2 in the last couple of days, for example). On a browse through his contribution history, I can't see him ever believing that an article should be deleted. Given that his mainspace history seems to consist entirely of reversions (I went through the last 4000 mainspace contributions and there's not a single edit other than reversions and AFD closures), and his user talk history consists entirely of boilerplate warnings, there are no quality article-space contributions or thoughtful talkpage discussions to counterbalance my feeling that this is an editor who just doesn't understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is. I'm also very put off by "I would also delete pages meeting the criteria for speedy deletion encountered in newpage patrol" - while I appreciate that a lot of admins do things that way, deleting things without a second opinion, except in th most clearcut cases, seems dubious to me, especially from a new admin. As he says he intends to work in AFD & CSDs, I can't support, given that admins working in those areas have to be able to make controversial decisions and defend them. — iride scent  20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising this issue. An important quality in any potential candidate for adminship is the ability to candidly recognize one's errors. I freely admit that my closure of Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore over two months ago was incorrect.  Since issues were raised a few months ago about several closures of this nature, where I may have applied Wikipedia policies against consensus as to the particular cases, I have recused myself from AFD closures which present such a conflict between policy and consensus.  A review of my recent AFD closures should clearly indicate that they have been performed correctly. John254 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three months ago ;) - Revolving Bugbear  21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, I actually do believe that some articles should be deleted -- see Articles for deletion/Inamul Haque and Articles for deletion/Armenian jokes, for example. Moreover, a review of my deleted contributions should indicate numerous articles which I have correctly tagged for speedy deletion, and have subsequently been deleted. However, since I freely recognize that I have significant inclusionist beliefs, I have previously and will continue to recuse myself from AFD closures where such beliefs could bias the outcomes. John254 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I respectfully disagree with Iridescent's assessment of my content contributions. While my creation of Use of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing did not involve a large number of edits, it obviously required many hours of off-wiki research and editing.  The claim that "I went through the last 4000 mainspace contributions and there's not a single edit other than reversions and AFD closures" seems to be inconsistent with my expansion of Rachel Marsden, which, while not involving such extended research, appears to have resolved a heretofore intractable issue by producing a WP:BLP compliant, non-stub version of the article.  This should surely qualify as a "thoughtful talkpage discussion". An editor's contributions of encyclopedic content and discussions thereof are often better described by a review of the contributions themselves than by a cursory edit history analysis. John254 05:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think having an inclusionist or deletionist outlook would alone be a reason to oppose, as admins are required to follow consensus - several admins of long standing of my acquaintance are equally inclusionist, while at least a couple are rabidly deletionist. That being said, I realise you do have other grounds for opposing - just thought I'd address that one. Orderinchaos 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Simply put the candidate doesn't get our deletion criteria and recently poor to bad judgement over a number of very pointy DRV nominations. Is very argumentative when people disagree with them and, while standing your ground is important in an admin, an ability to see things from other points of view is also necessary. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Very, Very Strong Oppose I had a conflect with John the other week, and he decided to look through my logs, and did some WP:POINT DRV nominations of deletions I did that was borderline harrassment. Two was easily endorsed and the last one was overturned and redeleted in AFD. Sorry but not now Secret account 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to the issue of deletion reviews, a number of my listings have resulted in the articles being restored, and subsequently retained -- see, for example, Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7, as a result of which Adlai Stevenson IV, Cyril Walker (footballer), Ghost Lake, Alberta, and Rachel Marsden were restored. A few my other listings have resulted in endorsements of the deletions -- though, even there, some administrators supported overturning them -- but one can't always predict deletion review results in advance :) John254 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This oppose seems as pointy as the accusations you are making. Opposing for the reasons you specify without providing diffs seems poor form. Justin  chat 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Oppose #1. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Wikilawyer extraordinaire. – Steel 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per all of the above. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) per above. The issues with Dmcdevit still leaves a sour taste.  &mdash;  DarkFalls  talk 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, has a habit of filing often frivolous RFARs when there is only a hint of conflict. Admins should resolve disputes, not throw them to someone else. Sean William @ 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sean William may be referring to Requests for arbitration/IRC, which was accepted unanimously by the Arbitration Committee, and in which he was an involved party. This is precisely the sort of case in which, as I described above, an administrator should not take unilateral action to block the users responsible for disruption, as any block would be extremely controversial, and would start a block war -- indeed, Giano II was unilaterally blocked, but was unblocked by Sean William shortly thereafter.  Not being willing to perform provocative blocks or unblocks, but instead deferring such matters to the Arbitration Committee, is, in my opinion, an attribute of a good administrator.  In any event, requests for arbitration which are actually accepted by the Committee are, by definition, not frivolous. John254 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You propose many cases for arbitration, almost none of which have anything to do with you. Instead of bothering to de-escalate the situation (or better, not getting involved at all), you rekindle disputes at RFAR. I'd prefer an administrator who is able to know when to get involved in a dispute and when not to, and someone who knows when to defer a dispute to a higher power. The cases you file lead me to believe that you posses neither. (   [6] [7]) Sean William  @ 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of the cases you cite were accepted (one of the citations is a duplicate, considering both the filing, and the main page for the same case.) In addition to Requests for arbitration/IRC, Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2 presents an example of a situation in which it would be imprudent for an administrator to take unilateral action against the users responsible for edit warring -- if TTN were blocked for edit warring, for instance, many administrators would oppose the block on the grounds that since they believe that TTN is engaged in legitimate policy enforcement, his edit warring isn't disruptive. As as result of Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath, RodentofDeath was banned for a year. RodentofDeath was sufficiently disruptive that, had I been an administrator at the time, I would have blocked him myself. However, as no administrator was willing to review the matter in detail, a request for arbitration was the only available forum in which to address the issue. John254 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sean, I wonder if you are willing saying that you oppose him as admin because he has riled RFA and RfC ub nmatters that involve you personally--I don't think that it's appropriate to carry such disputes here. DGG (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Matters that involve me personally? I beg your pardon, I'm not a named party in Requests for arbitration/IRC, and my only reason I'm even mentioned there was for one action that I did while the dispute was winding down. My bigger concerns were the requests for arbitrations filed for Zscout and Miltopia, in the links I posted above. Both were in response to Jimbo's actions; Zscout's had no visible conflict anyhow. But no matter, I will not withdraw my oppose, as I view it as a legitimate issue. Sean William @ 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) User has given unhelpful opposes in other people's RfAs, as demonstrated in the following diffs: I agree with Sean William's oppose too, and I also agree with Iridescent that most of John254's user talk edits are templates: I like vandal-fighters, as they're necessary, and we need them as admins, but I believe even they need to have other user talk interaction besides templates. Acalamari 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right -- I shouldn't oppose RFA candidates without explanation. However, with regard to the observation that "that most of John254's user talk edits are templates", I note that this would be true for any user with significant participation in RC patrol -- individualized user talk edits, no matter how substantial in character, would be dwarfed by the sheer volume of template warnings. John254 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've struck the part of the oppose regarding user talk edits: in all fairness, vandal-fighting can be a tough task, and if you warn vandals a lot (which is correct), there will be more "template" edits than hand-written edits. Acalamari 04:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I just have a bad feeling about this editor as an admin. There have been too many times when I just did not trust this editors judgement, too many times where I thought he was campaigning for things in way too wikilawyerish a way, too many AfDs that left me scratching my head in befuddlement... the excessive RfAr requests give me pause, while it is true that the IRC one, for example, might have ended up at arbitration no matter what, his starting it down that road rather early wasn't helpful. I also think he doesn't quite have the right balance with respect to BLP matters, his rather strident campaign recently about a particular DRV was rather worrisome. I don't think he'd necessarily "blow up the wiki" but I don't think he "gets it" and I'm not convinced he has a "deft touch". So, with some regret, oppose...  ++Lar: t/c 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The tools are not needed for you to litigate disputes in DRV and RFAR. I'm also not convinced that you won't wheel war. I support your editing, even controversial DRVs, but I think you would do wikipedia most good without the mop at this time. Cool Hand Luke 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm with Lar on this and frankly some of your behaviour recently at deletion review has been unhelpful and from what I recall, there was too much focus on administrators and not enough focus on the content of articles when nominating articles for deletion review. I recall having to point out to John on a couple of occasions why the deletion review and undeletion of an article might well be justified, but his rationale certainly wasn't. Nominating a number of articles for deletion review by going through the logs of one user isn't helpful either. There may be perfectly good reasons for undeleting a number of articles speedied by one administrator, but such behaviour isn't helpful and it shows a lack of the diplomacy needed for the role of administrator. Nick (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Threaded discussion, mainly concerning our different interpretations of the Biographies of living persons policy, has been moved here. Nick (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
 * 1) Weak Oppose per the above concerns. Try again in a few months and I might support you. NHRHS  2010   12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, regretfully, per above concerns. <font color="#FF0000">N <font color="#0000FF">F <font color="#808000">24 (radio me!) 13:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Loves drama. John Reaves 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - my only experience with this user is with his role in highly misguided and problematic processes.  krimpet ✽  23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Iridescent (as always) puts it rather well. The closing comments in Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore look like a keep argument; not a good sign. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per all of the above, especially the tendency to bring matters to WP:RFAR rather than bring disputes to an end via alternate, more amicable means. — Kurykh  04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per multiple valid concerns presented here. Possibly consider nudging the supporters with a trout.  Too often, we let people pass RFA, just because they have keep trying, and many edits.  Bad idea.  Friday (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Ramona Moore. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Lar. --John (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Not willing to trust with tools after viewing AfD behaviour links provided by iridescent. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) While he is a good editor, the non-admin closures leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. Will (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Regretfully neutral - John is a highly intelligent editor, who is determined to improve Wikipedia. His decision to request this arbcom case, was proved correct by the result. He is doubtless going to be an administrator eventually. However, the concerns raised prevent me from supporting this time around. Addhoc (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a foregone conclusion, and in fact, if there isn't a significant philosophical change in approach, I rather hope it isn't. This isn't a matter of more experience, this is a matter of differences in approach that are significant. Sorry. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Very strong at vandal fighting, and process, but a lack of sustained participation in any one article space (outside a few) indicates a lack of touch for me. Again, far too little evidence of discussion with other users. Mostly, though, I am concerned with the sheer quantity of edits in a period; perhaps there is less time given for contemplation than is wanted in making sysop decisions? I do not think this editor is anything less than committed to Wikipedia, but cannot support at this time for the reasons given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral: Good editor, but is quick to pull the trigger at times. May be convinced to change decision. Wizardman  02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that I have proposed given remedies in the context of arbitration workshops does not imply that, as an administrator, I would be willing to impose such remedies unilaterally. Administrators should not block users whenever the administrator believes that a block is justified --  blocks should only be placed where they are consistent with Wikipedia policy and practice, and when most other administrators are likely to concur in the decision to place them (prior discussion is not necessary in obvious cases, however).  Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 is precisely the sort of situation in which, as I stated in question 1, I recognize that any remedy would be highly controversial, and should not be imposed unilaterally. John254 03:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral He answered my question fully and reasonably. The bad AFD closures prevent me from supporting. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:44, 20 January 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.