Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mayalld


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

Nomination
FINAL (29/34/14); closed by EVula at 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

– Whilst I've had a few offers to nominate me at RFA in the past, they came at a point in time where I felt that there was more than enough that I could do without the bit, so I didn't take them up on their kind offers. I'm a great believer in the concept of users having the level of access that they NEED to do what they are doing, rather than the level of access that they WANT because it makes them feel important. To date, whilst I have involved myself more peripherally in administrative tasks, I have found that there was ample scope to help without the bit. Consequently I didn't need it, and haven't sought it. I now find that there are areas that I am keen to work in where the lack of the bit is limiting, so I'm asking for it! Mayalld (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my self-nomination!

I've been around since the middle of 2007. I would never claim to be a great content contributor, and those who hold the view that only those who can write brilliant prose can be good admins will wish to head directly for the oppose section.

Most of my content writing has been around one of my own personal interests, the inland waterways of the UK, and as a programmer by trade I hope that I've been able to do my bit for the wikiproject there as a tame template monkey. Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerns have been expressed about whether I have sufficient judgement in the deletion area. Whilst all admin tools are currently granted as a package, I am all too aware of my limitations in respect of deletion. If admin tools were unbundled, the delete button would be the one function that I would not be seeking. Whilst giving me the admin bit would give me a technical ability to delete, I have no wish to use it at present, and undertake not to do so without seeking a prior confirmation, at RFA, of community confidence. If I do use it, I will unequivocaly resign the bit. If I fail to resign the bit, I ask that any steward takes this statement, along with evidence that I have carried out a deletion, as a request to desysop me. Mayalld (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Important Note regarding this RFA

OK, so conventionally RFA candidates don't do this, but I see no need to be conventional!
 * Closing remarks from the candidate

I went into this RFA knowing that my deletion work had made some people unhappy, and that it would probably be the issue on which the RFA hung, and so it proved to be.

The responses (and I am grateful for all the responses, support oppose and neutral, but won't be bugging any of you with thankspam) have served to provide a quantative measure of the extent of that unhappiness.

The conclusion of this RFA was obvious from 12 hours in, and clearly I could have withdrawn, and saved myself the indignity of a failed RFA (not even no consensus, but failed).

However, that would have been a worthless exercise. I wouldn't have gathered nearly as many takes on what issues I need to resolve before the next RFA, and we wouldn't have had the opportunity to use me as an experiment in whether limited adminship is a real possibility, based on a trust of the person, but an acknowledged weakness in one area.

Thanks to this RFA, I now know where I need to work on improving (and the work started several days ago).

Between now and May, I will remain active in all the areas that I am currently active in, including deletion. I will be keeping a list of every AFD, PROD and CSD, and will make that log available during my next RFA. I will be doing a bit more content building from time to time, and I will be venturing into non-admin AFD closures. I'm not as much of a deletionist as I'm painted!

Thanks

Mayalld (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: In the first instance, I intend to concentrate on the new sockpuppet and Checkuser process. I've been involved as a reporter in a number of long term cases of whack-a-mole with recalcitrant vandals popping up under a new ID from time to time, and with the dawn of the new process have volunteered to assist as a clerk. This is one of those areas that suffers extensive backlogs, and is most in need of more admin attention. I don't believe that any admin (or user) should either concentrate on one area, or attempt to do everything, so I'll probably opt to do a bit at WP:RPP and at WP:AIV at first, with very little in other areas. Neither do I believe that an admin should stay working on an area for too long, and I would plan that after 6-9 months of working in a particular area, I'd take a break, and work in a different area for a while to keep me fresh. Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: As I already said, I'm not a writer of great prose, and I've only created about a dozen new articles. My best work in article space is very much in the Wikignome arena, and I like to delude myself that I've managed to edit some articles to tweak the layout and sections so as to make other people's prose easier to read. I've done some work on the UK Waterways Portal, including devising some templates to help manage the DYK and News sections with minimal ongoing input, that I'm very pleased with. I project space, I feel that my work on stopping the perenially returning vandals and their socks has been worthwhile. Mayalld (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (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: Have I been in conflict over editing? I can't recall any edit disputes over articles. I'm a big believer in discussing differences of opinion. In vandal patrolling, and sock puppet patrolling, clearly conflict is inevitable, and yes, occasionally it gets me to the point where I roll my eyes at the other guy. In past times, I might have tended to be like a dog with a rabbit, but I think I'm getting pretty good at spotting when somebody isn't going to get it now, and just backing away from the horse. In future? Well, more of the same. Deceased equines will be humanely treated, and if its clear that a discussion isn't going to be productive, drop it, or pass it on to somebody else. Mayalld (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional Question from Backslash Forwardslash
 * 4. In your opinion, what would be your biggest weakness as an editor?
 * A: My biggest weakness is probably in deletion. I tend to let my gut feeling take control when nominating, and it winds some people up, because it leads to some bad calls. If I was more cynical and calculating, I'd probably have gone down the road of holding back on some of the stuff I do to present the right image at AFD. I haven't done that, because I think that admin coaching, trying to stuff your recent edit history with good stuff, and all the other stuff that can improve your chances at AFD are cynical and dishonest. That isn't who I am Mayalld (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Q's from flaminglawyer
 * 5. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, give a simile comparing blocking to a real-life scenario, and banning to a real-life scenario.
 * A. The first part is simple enough. A block is a technical measure that can be taken to prevent an editor from doing so. A ban is a decision, taken either by the community, or by Arbcom, that an editor is not permitted to do something. A ban can be an outright ban on editing, in which case, a block may be used to enforce it, or it may be a prohibition on some more limited set of activities, in which case, the ban won't be enforced by technical means (but ignoring the ban may lead to a block). Real life similies are a bit harder, particularly if I want to stay away from technology examples. I suppose, if Mrs Mayalld tells me that due to the increasing waistline, I'm not to drink any cans of Boddingtons during the week, that is a ban. If she puts a padlock on the beer cupboard, that's a block Mayalld (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 6. Under what circumstances would you not deny/not do an RFPP?
 * A. Well, I suppose I might possibly do so if the requestor got tangled with double negatives! OK, serious answer. I would deny a request if the amount of vandalism or the extent of an edit war wasn't such that the article "needed" that protection. In coming to that judgement, particularly in vandalism cases, I would have regard for both the number of vandal attacks, the duration of the current spell of vandalism, the time that it was taking for vandalism to be reverted, and the number of editors who were actually engaged in reverting. Mayalld (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Aervanath:
 * 7. How active would you be in deletion as an admin?
 * A. In the (currently unlikely) event that this RFA passes, I will be utterly inactive as an admin in deletion. It is a very reasonable assumption that an editor who is active in deletion would also be active in deletion as an admin, but in my case not true. I will remain active as an editor on deletion, and will seek to address the concerns expressed here (Protonk's comment on the attitude to take as a CSD patroller is perhaps the most succinct view, and one that I think I will adopt as a personal maxim to ensure that I get things right). If (and only if) I feel that I have resolved those issues, I would seek a reconfirmation RFA to confirm that the community has confidence in my judgement on the delete button before allowing myself to use it. SoWhy rightly asks what you propose to do if I promise to steer clear of the delete button, then break that promise. I think I can answer that question quite simply. If I use the delete button without seeking prior approval in a further RFA, I will resign the bit. No ifs, no buts, no get-out clauses, no complicated process to follow, I will cease to be an admin. I will anotate the head of this RFA accordingly, with the express wish that it should be seen as a binding promise, and to provide a failsafe. If I delete anything without a further AFD RFA to confirm the community confidence in that area, and I fail to resign, this is my prior request to a steward to revoke the bit. Mayalld (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Oren0
 * 8. The tools are usually expected to be used by "uninvolved admins". What does it mean for an admin to be "involved" in a situation?  In what circumstances might you be too "involved" to protect a page?  To block a user?  Are there circumstances where it would be OK to block a user with whom you've had significant prior interaction?
 * A. Involved is one of those things that is damned difficult to put into words, but which people are actually pretty good at determining intuitively. Significant prior interaction with a user isn't necessarily a problem, provided that you can be 100% sure that you are blocking based on the issues at hand, rather than prior issues. Only the adnin concerned can determine this, and it is, I suppose, part of RFA that the community needs to trust that the Admin would recuse appropriately. Personally, for example, I would decline to impose blocks myself on AndreaMimi, because I was too closely involved for too long. Mayalld (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9. Under what (if any) circumstances would you unblock a user without the permission of the blocking admin?
 * A. That is an ambiguous question! "without permission" could be passive (the blocking admin hasn't commented), or active (the blocking admin has explicitly objected to an unblocking). In general though, I can't think of any case where I would think it appropriate to reverse another admin without his/her consent unless there was a clear public consensus to do so. I would note that I wouldn't consider it to be reversing another admin if the reasons for the block were no longer present. So, for example, if a vandal, on their first block at 31 hours has promised not to do so again, I would consider it appropriate to unblock. Mayalld (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Hipocrite
 * 10. Have you been involved in a long running dispute as a neutral third party? How did you adress it? If not, could you please pick a current long running dispute and discuss how you might help adress it?
 * A. Yes. Mediating long running disputes is, however, something that requires an ability to commit to being around day in, day out for as long as it takes to talk the dispute through. As such, I don't feel able to get involved in such cases unless I know that I'm going to be online and have some time at least daily during the next two weeks. Unfortunately, that means that I don't do much of it, which is a pity, as it is very rewarding, and gives far greater opportunities for engaging in conversations than other stuff. If you want an example, then Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada is probably worth a look. This was a case where both editors distrusted each other, and were all too ready to assume bad faith with each other. Things had got to a point where so much time was spent arguing about bad faith, they never got within a mile of actually talking about the issues under dispute. Every dispute needs a tailored approach (if it didn't, we'd get bots to do it), and this one desparately needed both sides to focus on the problem instead of each other. So, my approach was to ask both parties to agree to a very tightly controlled mediation, where I set the next step of the agenda all the way, where they were strictly bound to respond only within the set limits of that agenda, and couldn't comment on what the other had said. It didn't go smoothly all the way, and each managed to step outside the lines on occasion, but they did actually get to some more constructive discussion about the issues rather than each other. In the end, sadly, whilst we had come close to a compromise, there remained a few issues where one party felt unable to concede further, and we ended up with further disputes, so to an extent it was a failure, but conversely, the parties were better able to negotiate a resolution to their disputes later on, and seem to have found a way to co-exist without bloodshed. Mayalld (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Thor Malmjursson
 * 11 Why do you feel the need to self nominate for adminship, and do you consider self nomination something which should ideally be avoided?
 * A. I self-nominated because the areas that I am currently working in would be easier to work in with the bit, so the natural thing is to ask the community for the bit. Do I consider self nomination something that should be avoided? No, I don't! There does seems to be something of a perception at RfA that nominations by somebody else carry more weight, perhaps because they provide evidence that somebody thinks you are a sufficiently strong candidate to actively support by nominating, rather than to offer a more passive support post-nom. This, in my view, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Whilst many 3rd party noms have been initiated by the nominator, some are as a result of canvassing for a nomination. I'm not a fan of artifice, and refuse to play silly games to gain advantage here. As such, as nobody was offering to nominate me at the time I decided to run, the honst way forward is to self nominate. Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Mayalld:


 * I disagree with Balloonman. (see history)  Keepscases (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * then take it to WT:RFA where I invited people to revert me if they disagreed, but this is not the place to discuss it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Support

 * 1) Support Seems qualified. Think his answer to question 1 is a little too staged, but not unreasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. No problems.  --Kbdank71 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support...I've had this redlink watchlisted for a while, and am pleased that it has finally turned blue. I don't hesitate to support - he's sensible, level-headed, has shown excellent knowledge of wide-ranging areas of policy, and his having the tools will be a great positive to the encyclopaedia. GbT/c 17:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Defaulting to support, seen Mayalld around, they seem to do good work. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose, seems I was mistaken. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Appears to be a good user Ijanderson (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support He's been here a while, has extra user rights, excellent edit summary usage. Effective clerking. Looks deliberate and careful. I think he would make a good admin. --NrDg 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the excellent edit summary usage. Sure, TWINKLE writes reasonable edit summaries for him, but on his human-powered edits I've found the edit summaries to be as close to nonexistent as you can get while not being blank. See my neutral, and feel free to convince me otherwise with edits I've overlooked so far. rspεεr (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I take offense to the neutral because I myself am not a big content builder but I still feel as though, I am improving the encyclopedia, in my own way. And clearly Mayalld's way is removing the garbage vandalizers put on, so he is building the encyclopedia, but differently than others.-- Iamawesome800  Talk to Me   20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per sound nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruft portal and reasonable argument at Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs (2nd nomination), but oppose per weak argument at Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination), but candidate has never been blocked, so, 2 to 1 for AfD participation and meets item 1 on User:A_Nobody. So weak support.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per experience in area related to request. Not so enthusiastic about AFD work and saw no recent AIV work. I would recommend spending some time tagging for CSD and working at WP:DRV before working on deletions, and would recommend more work at reporting vandalism before blocking for it. Cheers  Dloh  cierekim  20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Switch to oppose. per Terraxos, Pedro, WilyD and NVO. Earlier advice stands with greater emphasis. <>  Dloh  cierekim  21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support since there is no user conduct reasons to oppose for, although I would recommend familarize yourself with administrative tasks first though before submitting a request for RfA again, they should be pretty straightforward and I don't think you should have trouble getting used to them. If you wish to work in the deletion area, my suggestion is, participate in AfD's, or at least, look at them, and see how they are closed by other administrators, you can learn a lot just by reading those debates. Y. Ichiro (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The people opposing have a valid point about CSD work; a refresher seems to be in order. But there's a lot of piling on going on now, to an on-the-whole helpful, conscientious, solid contributer.  More than 100 reports to AIV, helpful at WP:SSP and WP:SPI, no other red flags besides CSD... Mayalld is much closer to adminship than the current support/oppose ratio implies, so I'm doing my tiny part to counteract that discrepancy. --barneca (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support mostly per barneca, but also because I like the honesty in Q4. &raquo; \ / (⁂) 06:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, most of the opposition below concentrates on your speedy work, which is, I'll admit, pretty poor. That said, if you commit to approaching speedy deletion as a two-editor operation, the potential for harm is minimised.  Just lighten up with  .  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC).
 * 5) Support - switched from Oppose, per answer to Q7. I'm supporting Mayalld on the trust of his answer to that question, that he does not use his admin tools for deletion, as he hasn't demonstrated proper knowledge of deletion rationales. However, I feel he could be a productive admin as long as he keeps to other areas. Terraxos (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support candidate has tenure a clean block log and seems to know his way around this place. The opposes raise some concerns but I'm largely reassured by the candidates statements on deletionism.  Were Spiel  Chequers  12:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Candidate has assuaged my concerns; see Question 7 and my comments in the section.--Aervanath (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Moral Support — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, per Q7 answer. You're a great admin candidate apart from your rather-too-regular CSD flailings. If you avoid doing any of that I think you'd be a great addition - regular admin attention in the other areas you work in (particularly WP:SSP) is much needed. I trust your intentions and your honesty, and the only worry I have about your judgment comes in the area of deletion. Without that, you have my full support. Best of luck. ~ mazca  t 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, partially to balance out some incredibly stupid opposes (taking issue with his stated refusal to beat dead horses? Really?), partially because I believe that any contributor who would be driven from the project by the incorrect speedy of their article is a bit too histronic to be devoting time and/or energies towards, partially per Q4. Badger Drink (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to annoy you, but I don't think anyone opposed because he stated to refuse to beat dead horses - rather because they believe he will do so despite his assurances. And you will notice that many newbies are logically unfamiliar with out policies and over-eager deletions that are not needed will likely scare those away who actually contributed valid content that was just a bit confusing/misformated/wrongly-worded. There is nothing wrong with speedy deletions - but only if they are within policy because it was clearly created in place to minimize those risks. Just a general thought, not only for this RfA/candidate.  So Why  20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Hmm. Interesting diffs in the CSD requests.  Your "self-ban" on deletion is fine, but extreme. Probably unnecessary. Maybe do a "several month" self ban, and then revise your deadminship standard.  I think the resounding voice of the opposers below has the potential of making you one of our best and fairest "deletion admins" we have.  I certainly don't see any evidence that you would act rashly with any of the tools.  That aside, I like the tactful way in which you are handling yourself in this rfa, and I choose to believe that this is your true demeanor, which seems calm, comfortable, and grounded in a logic approach to your editing strengths and weaknesses.  I don't have a problem with you joining the admin group.   Keeper  |  76  03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - obviously. Calm and collected in the face of seeming intractable disputes, you know your limitations and will stay away from deletion. Unfortunately it looks like this won't succeed, but it should succeed, and that it won't is yet another indictment of the RFA process. // roux   18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Roux, whose phrase about calm and collected explains my views well. It is a pity that this won't pass, for your self-limitations are admirable. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support A good editor. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Ray (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: Yesterday I screwed up a speedy delete. I've had the mop since 2007, and I've been editing since 2005. It happens. When approached by another editor to undo the deletion, I complied, before we both eventually realized that I deleted a page which could have been deleted, or could have simply been moved. So in the end, I deleted a page that should have been deleted, by I used the wrong criteria, and then overturned by own decision, which would have been correct... I think... ah never mind... still trying to figure out exactly what I did. The point I'm trying to make is that admins make mistakes because they also happen to be humans (unless they happen to be a bot, or a bot-human hybrid). A good admin is someone who is willing to take the advice of other editors. I think that Mayalld has reasonably expressed an intent to look before leaping, and Mayalld's overall history doesn't give me the impression that we cannot trust them. The criticism in this RfA is good, and Mayalld has taken it well, and constructively. That's good, and should shed some light on what type of admin he would be. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. We need more admins who prefer gnomery to drama, and SPI needs all the help it can get. Some speedy taggers are better than others, and I've seen far worse than Mayalld, who seems willing to admit his occasional errors. Deor (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Everything I had wanted to say, has already been said – an excellent user and a good candidate for the administrator 'bit'. Caulde  15:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Helpful user with good edits. Out of so many CSDs, everyone misfires a few times.  I'm not worried.   Flying  Toaster  05:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Very Weak Support Tcrow777Talk 09:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Moral support, I hope you'll take the feedback to heart and consider running again once ready :) -- lucasbfr  talk 11:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support The major objection is your deletion work which is certainly not of the level I'd hope for from an admin. But I'd trust you to uphold your self-imposed ban, and there's no reason checkuser should lose your bit-enabled help because you're not qualified for a separate area (I know XfD/CSD quality can be an indicator of general clue, but it's a correlation not a strict rule, and this feels to me like an exception). Best of luck, and I hope you see this as a positive experience for prompting you to re-evaluate your CSD technique. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Q3. Whether deceased equines applies to User:AndreaMimi or anyone else, no buttons from me. NVO (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another concern (although not a solid nay alone): Misfired speedies (overturned, deleted, or just left to expire; at least one CSD R3 when the redir was already at RFD). On the other hand, a lot of your article-space edits were made to articles of doubtful notability (von Trapp siblings, game universes etc.). It just does not fit into a coherent image. NVO (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain it refers to the phrase "beating a dead horse", meaning, Mayalld isn't going to do it (hence the "backing away from the horse"). Which I would think is a good thing.  --Kbdank71 20:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this oppose? Could you elaborate on your rationale?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Sowhy's oppose explained this one.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lean Oppose - it read more as a desire to be a CU than as an admin, unless I am missing something. Is this merely the first step to that position? I am willing to be convinced that you deserve to be an admin but I am not yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. No, I don't see it as a stepping stone to CU. The new process has merged the two processes, and I mention them together because they are a merged process, not because I wish to take on CU responsibilities. Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which aspect of it would you need to perform as an admin? Blocking those who are determined as socks? I'm still not seeing where you would need administrative tools. Please explain. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all sock cases need CU. Many can be determined from contributions (which needs no admin access). Others need to delve into deleted contributions (which does need admin access). Clearly blocking those who are socks needs admin access. Part of the clerking process (endorsing CU requests) also requires admin access (although this could probably be worked around) Mayalld (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose-Per Oppose #1.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, candidates who are in favor of beating dead horses make much better admins. Badger Drink (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Bad Speedybad speedy Bad Speedy (GFDL)Bad SpeedyBad SpeedyBad Speedy - and that's just the last week. The last thing we need is someone patrolling new pages who doesn't realise that "About a company or product" is not a synonym for "spam". Wily D  21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I freely accept that I have made some wrong calls on some speedies. You will, however note that deletions is not an area that I intend working in, precisely because I am well aware that my opinion on deletion is on the deletionist side of the norm. I have no intention of working in an area that I'm going to get wrong! As to the examples, I would dispute three of them as being "bad". The Chistine Aguilera had been sent back to AFD on the grounds that a merge result from a prior AFD hadn't been implemented. Checking the Articles showed that the info had been merged. That would seem to be a good G6 to me. One article that I tagged as spam was redirected to the article on the company, and one is still at PROD. I would also point out that in addition to a few errors, I have many more CSDs that were accepted and deleted. I don't have a 0% error rate, and I don't seek to excuse the cock ups. Finally on this subject, I don't hold with admins deleting untagged CSDs. Even CSD should always involve 2 pairs of eyes. Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree that CSD always needs two pairs of eyes. WP:CSD is a prime example of when admins can and must act quickly and without consultation. It's part of our WP:BLP policy. Pedro : Chat  22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are cases where an admin can and should shoot from the hip. They are uncommon though, and I believe that admins doing so should always get another admin to sense check the deletion after the fact. Mayalld (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your sentiments, but I'm afraid G10's are not that uncommon. An hour of CSD work will show you that. However, I take your point and agree that if there is doubt two sets of eyes is best if possible. Pedro : Chat  22:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it's a requirement that admins know every area of policy (for instance, I've no idea when I'm supposed to use mdashs), speedy deletion is an area in which you're currently avtive. I think it's reasonable to expect admins to be good with policies in areas where they're active.  CSD is especially the case where we need people who'll err on the side of caution, send things to AFD, et cetera, rather than err on the side of recklessness.  And many, many bad noms are in CSD all the time (probably a quarter or so need to be rejected), so the second set of eyes is often unhelpful. Wily D  00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the first two? :P Garden : Chat  21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Bad Speedybad speedy Wily D 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, okay then.  GARDEN  21:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have speedied the Android_Dev_Phone_1 article dif, as it was spammish. Secret account 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That you would've made a bad G11 doesn't mean we need more admins who're likely to make the same mistake. At AfD that article might be kept, deleted - hard to say.  But it's just a basic description of a product, with no particular argument or motivation as to why one might want to buy it - certainly if you worked for an ad agency and wrote an ad like that you'd quickly be fired.  It's "stubbish", but that's not a speedy deletion criterion.  Most likely at AFD it'd get either sourced or deleted, but one can easily envision "keep" votes at AFD.  The speedy deletion criterion requires "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." - a very basic description is not elidgible. Wily D  17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per SoWhy's WilyD's last three diffs. No understanding of how tight the speedy criteria is (and should be) Pedro : Chat  21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I love reading my name, I think you are referring to WilyD ;-)  So Why  21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for revealing your sockpuppet that mistake. :) Pedro : Chat  22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, you think that was my sock? My sock's name is much harder to decrypt than that!! ;-)  So Why  07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, too deletionist. Lift your right foot.   GARDEN  21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:WilyD: over-aggressive and incorrect use of CSD, particularly db-spam. We need more admins prepared to give a new article a chance, not more who will instinctively reach for the delete button. Terraxos (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Switching to Support per answer to Q7. Terraxos (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example: Articles for deletion/Life. Support. Music., which he nominated but was closed as 'snow keep'. Terraxos (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per WilyD. I was afraid that Mayalld's contributions rarely required any more effort than clicking a button in TWINKLE; WilyD has shown me that sometimes he's not even clicking the appropriate button. His non-TWINKLE contributions have drastically uninformative edit summaries, making them hard to examine even when you can find them. I don't see him communicating much with other users. (Templates don't count -- as an admin, there won't be a template for everything you need to communicate.) In all, these make me conclude that Mayalld is not ready to be an admin. rspεεr (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that I do a lot of TW work, and a lot of template stuff. Does that mean that I never communicate otherwise. I would claim otherwise. User:AndreaMimi is a case in point. I spent many an entertaining hour communicating there, trying to explain policy. Likewise User:CBMIBM Mayalld (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, is User talk:AndreaMimi really what you wanted me to see? This looks to me like you were unnecessarily harsh with a good-faith contributor over trivial Manual of Style issues. You were told to "cool it". The talk page ends with AndreaMimi's spiraling decline into being blocked, and hating Wikipedia and you in particular. I'm not saying she was right or anything, but couldn't you have found an example of resolving a problem instead of hastening its unfortunate end?
 * Yes, it is, certainly. AndreaMimi, long before I became involved with her had a habit of "hating" anybody who dared to stand in the way of her doing things exactly her own way (and had already been indef blocked on de.wiki for the same sort of behaviour). Her hating Wikipedia hasn't prevented her repeated return under new accounts since then to continue to edit her way. If you would like an example of resolving (although sadly the resolution collapsed again shortly afterwards), perhaps Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada would be to your taste. Mayalld (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The other user you listed, User:CBMIBM, is also indefinitely blocked, with a triumphant note by you on their talk page. Maybe they were that bad, but again, not a good example. There's a whole lot more to communication than how many Wiki-kills you can paint on your bow. rspεεr (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a triumphant note! If I were painting kills, I'd keep them all together. User:CBMIBM/[{User:Wikinger]] returns periodically to sock. His talk page was deleted, but it was useful for detecting new socks, because his new socks can't resist editing it, so I asked for it to be restored, and put the note there as a request to admins not to delete it again. Mayalld (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that I don't have all the back-story here, that it was probably necessary for these editors to end up blocked. I don't mean to say what you did was wrong. I've done some hunting of serial sockpuppets myself, and I understand how underappreciated it can be. But when I'm asking for examples of communicating with other users, I'm looking for communication that's cooperative and not adversarial. rspεεr (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * this (already quoted above) is an example that I feel shows that I can communicate. It was a MEDCAB case that was off to a rocky start, because both parties were itching to fling accusations of bad faith at the other. I approached it with the attitude that free discussion in the then current climate wasn't going to get anywhere, so I got both to agree that they would conduct an extremely directed discussion, with me setting the agenda, and an absolute ban on commenting on each others motives, with a promise that I would deal with infractions by either side. It turned a slanging match into a productive discussion that moved both parties some way towards agreement. Mayalld (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Switch to oppose. per Terraxos, Pedro, WilyD and NVO. Earlier advice stands with greater emphasis. <>.   Dloh  cierekim  21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose #1 you would kind of need Checkuser for that. #2 - Not impressed. We have enough TWINKLE admins and not enough content admins.  miranda   22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SSP and CU are now run through a single page. You don't need CU to run the non-CU side of things. Mayalld (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Makes many mistakes with deletion (I declined a couple of them myself). Overeagerness in deletion can only hurt. Also, per NVO: AndreaMimi was my adoptee, so I might be biased, but I will try to comment objectively on that. AndreaMimi was a newbie who tried to change some articles in her interest. She was aggressive about it, she broke 3RR, she was blocked. She continued as an IP, as many newbies do, being unfamiliar with policy - and got blocked indef for sockpuppeteering. She overreacted, accused him of destroying her hard work - understandable, although I hadn't done it if I were her. But the candidate's reaction was much too harsh on a newbie imho, because he accused her of editing against MoS on purpose ("...editing in an attempt to get a non-MOS version of an article to remain..."). I don't know about you but when I was I newbie, I have had no idea what a "MoS" is or that I was breaking it. I agree that she broke the rules and it was probably correct to block her for it but the way the candidate acted in this case shows me that he does not have the necessary patience to be an admin. I don't want someone with his hand on the block-button who gets so easily annoyed that he might block good editors who just don't understand all the rules yet. Regards  So Why  22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point of Order! AndreaMimi was NOT a newbie. She arived here from de.wiki, having been indef blocked there for her tenditious editing. I didn't just say "MOS". I explained what MOS was, and what it said on a subject. Her reaction was to announce that her way was better, and to demand that I leave "her" articles alone. Mayalld (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * de-wiki != en-wiki. De-wiki is run by Germans, which makes a very different place and frankly it's one of the wikis most different to this one. So I think we can in good faith say that she was a newbie here because our processes are in fact different. Your reactions were unnecessary harsh, even if I were to assume that you meant well and unfitting of an user who wants to be an admin. Patience is needed in great amounts and I think you lack it.  So Why  07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per User:WilyD. ArcAngel (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per #4 & #6 (and gut feeling) --MoRsE (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Per WilyD. Good user, bad tagging, uncomfortable with supporting this particular bid (if you were to come back later though with better tagging and less haste to delete, I would be likely to support). &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per diffs from WilyD, especially the second. We need people with maturity. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ?
 * Switching to neutral... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I indented your vote to reflect the switch and keep the numbering accurate. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too enthusiastic with speedy deletion per above. Townlake (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, but I'd like to encourage the candidate to keep working on deletion skills and try RFA again in 3 months or so. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) While I thought you (Mayalld) were an admin already, WilyD, SoWhy, and Townlake sum it up quite nicely why you aren't one. Oppose. -- Dylan620 Hark unto me 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, but per WilyD and Nuero. Too much of a deletionist.  Little Mountain  5   01:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)  Switch to neutral.
 * 1) Oppose Place on the inclusion/deletion spectrum doesn't bother me but in practice every CSD patroller should think like a rabid inclusionist. "two sets of eyes" is absolutely, positively the wrong way to think about this (though I agree that 99% of speedies should see two people).  Both people need to be paying attention and refusing to delete or tag anything strictly outside the categories. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'm sorry, but per WilyD. Sorry. America69 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm a pretty strong deletionist at times in my own right, so that's not too big a deal. That being said, the speedy issues, the diffs provided.. I just have an overall bad gut feeling. Believe me, I'm trying hard not to oppose anyone, but I feel like I can't support. Wizardman  03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per bad speedy tagging. Ironholds (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per WilyD, although I think you should contact a member of the "arbitration committee" to request CheckUser, even without adminship. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Regretful Oppose. I looked at Oppose #4 and I'm not impressed. WP:CSD is something tooken very seriously in an RfA, especially when I !vote, so that took away my support. However on Question #4, you proved you had a weakness in deletion and YOU said, "I tend to let my gut feeling take control when nominating, and it winds some people up, because it leads to some bad calls." I don't like that one bit and that took away my neutral. If you don't feel confident about your deletion, don't nominate it. Try again soon!  K50   Dude   ROCKS!   06:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose based on question four. kilbad (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose – While I do like the analogy used in flaminglawyer's question, I'm afraid that I must oppose per the comments made primarily by rspεεr and WilyD. In order to maintain balance on the project, there must be some "deletionist" mentality as well as some "archivist" mentality; so your position doesn't sway me as a negative per sé.  The primary negative weighting factor is the hastiness involved in making your decisions to include CSD templates.  Should this RfA fail, I do hope that you stay with—and continue to contribute to—the project.  I do wish you a favorable statistical outcome, however.  — Archon Magnus (Talk 15:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully take on board the comments regarding hasty CSD noms, and regardless of whether this RFA (with my self-imposed no-deletions rider) passes, I'll be working to address those concerns, and on all the other areas that I currently work in. The thought of leaving if I am not successful never entered my head! Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the incorrect CSDs shown in the examples by WilyD. SF3  (talk!) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Excessively confrontational, especially against newbies. Excessively deletionist. Is he back? (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Despite Mayalld's pledge not to actively delete pages, he should have a better understanding of deletion criteria.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, I should, and when this RfA fails (hey, I'm a realist!), I will be ensuring that I brush up on my understanding. I expect to be back at RfA in 3 months, able to demonstrate a much improved track record. Mayalld (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose doesn't understand admin stuff, accepted own self-nomination, and User talk:Kenneth Alexander. Admins should know not to do what happened there. Alio The Fool 18:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, go on, I'll ask the question... What was wrong with my conduct at Kenneth Alexander? The guy isn't notable, his court case isn't notable, but he want's to engage in a bit of preening himself by telling everybody how clever he is for winning a court case. The articles were rightly up for deletion, and rightly deleted. Mr Alexander went in for a good deal of throwing insults my way, questioning my intelligence, etc. etc., and I kept my cool with him, whilst he repeatedly screwed up everything he touched. Mayalld (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You kept giving him warnings for supposed personal attacks on your own talk. I don't think that follows Wiki guidelines Alio The Fool 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Bad deletionist, and mistakes which could be worse as an admin in Twinkle. ѕwirlвoy   ₪  04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to self-crippling on deletion. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per WilyD and SoWhy, among others. Glass  Cobra  17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per all above, user is too deletionist. —macyes: bot 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I appreciate that Dave has said that he won't work on deletion, but his activities in that area still give an indication of how he would approach other admin tasks. The deletion nominations referenced above show a pretty stubborn insistence on following gut instinct rather than following policies and guidelines agreed by consensus, and in particular the habit of marking neutrally worded articles as spam shows a failure to assume good faith, which is one of the most important attributes of a good admin. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I understand your comments re deletion, but giving the tools inevitably includes giving the deletion button. If you do not trust yourself to use it, how can we trust you to have it? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the point is, I think, that I trust myself to have the button, but to not use it! Whilst I fully take on board the comments about my getting it wrong on deletion, it has been most heartening to note that several people have indicated that whilst they don't trust me (yet) to make a correct call on deletion, they do trust me to stick by my word. That is what the latter stages of this RFA have been about. Do people trust me to stick by my word? Mayalld (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral . I've tried to look up Mayalld's contributions, and I couldn't find them. That is, his last 3000 edits contained almost nothing but the results of automated tools like TWINKLE. The few human-powered edits I saw in there were me-too comments on Wikipedia discussions, often with surprisingly uninformative edit summaries such as "r", "cmt", or "add". I'd like to see some examples of Mayalld improving Wikipedia's content (even if not in the "writing brilliant prose" sense), communicating effectively with other Wikipedians, and making tough decisions, but they're rather hard to find so far. I may change to Support if someone can show me some examples. I may change to Oppose if I come to the conclusion that Mayalld is yet another TWINKLE-powered candidate without much actual experience. rspεεr (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose per WilyD. rspεεr (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Opposers provide good reasoning, but I am not fully convinced. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Many convincing opposes (especially WilyD), but I still feel like I shouldn't outright oppose. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Neutral but willing to support (switched to support per my promise): Has a demonstrated need for the tools. Allegations of poor judgment seem mostly based on over-deletionist attitude towards speedy deletion.  There are other concerns raised, but nothing that I can see as a big impediment.  I like his answers to the questions above.  I will support if Mayalld promises to stay away from using the deletion button.  I mostly trust him in all other areas.--Aervanath (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put this concern up as Question 7, above.--Aervanath (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for my understanding: In that hypothetical scenario, what do you propose we do if he does promise that and then breaks the promise?  So Why  08:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've answered the question, and I hope that I've done so in a way that makes it very clear what I'm promising, and what will happen if I break that promise. Mayalld (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing against you, but we have no way of enforcing this promise; it relies solely on you resigning because I don't think a steward will de-sysop anyone based on any self-requests they made long before they got the tools. And although you might say so now, once you made those mistakes, you will of course think otherwise because if you don't, you wouldn't have made them in the first place. It's kind of a circular logic and I think you should rather concentrate on understanding deletion policy instead of promising to keep away from it. Regards  So Why  12:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SoWhy, you're absolutely right about the non-enforceability of his promise; so the only thing it comes down to is: do you trust him to keep it? I've seen enough that I do trust him, so I'm switching to support.  Obviously, if you still don't feel comfortable, then there isn't anyone (least of all me) who's going to hold it against you for not supporting, since it's a reasonable position to take. But I feel comfortable.--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect SoWhy's concerns, as to the enforceability of my promise, although it is my very clear intent that the promise should be enforceable. I guess it comes down to the essential question, not as to my competence in deletion, but as to whether, based on my general conduct, people believe that I will stick to my word. I know that if I did screw up, I would stick by the promise. Other people must form their own views on that point! It is also my intention to concentrate effort on getting deletion right. Whether this RFA passes or not, there will be another RFA at some point asking for community confidence in me including the delete button. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, not even leaning either way. Honestly, those bad CSD's are horrendous. I had a good opinion of the user based upon the Q's, but the CSD things negated it out to a neutral. flaminglawyer 12:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I would suggest concentrating on brushing up on your speedy deletion taggings for a few months. When you have improved, you should come back to RFA.  You have the potential to become a great administrator, but your improper taggings are holding you back.  Best of luck. Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Worried about some of WilyD difs, two of the links were borderline and I myself would have speedied them, (the phone and the WP:NEO created the same day) but the rest clearly wasn't. Also I prefer article work experience as well, you could always try working on your prose. I'm a poor prose editor (trust me), but I still have a few FAs and GAs under my belt. Neutral, to avoid pile on. Secret account 17:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Worried that the user is a little too extreme a deletionist, and I possess concern about the WilyD diffs. However, this user is very well meaning and is a good contributor. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) ... so as not to pile on. Please feel free to come back after expanding into content creation.  It's pretty clear that consensus is that admins should have enough encryclopedia building experience to have credible empathy with content creators. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Jclemens. I also thought you were overly harsh with AndreasMimi. We have to be human beings here, and remember that others are also human beings, even when we disagree with them. --John (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral The speedies pointed out by WilyD aren't as problematic as claimed, but some were just wrong. Time to get more experience and then come back. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral That 'Important Note regarding this RfA' is enough to sway me from opposing, but I still do not feel confident supporting.  Little Mountain  5   00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral I recently became aware of Mayalld as a result of this user's work as a clerk at the new Sockpuppet investigations page. I've also noticed the user's name on a couple of AfDs. My overall impression is favorable, and I believe that a Sockpuppet investigations clerk can be more effective with admin privs, so half of me says "support this request." However, the other half of me notices that most of Mayalld's active involvements are very recent (this might be why it is only recently that I became aware of this user name), and that judgments on article deletions often have been less than fully baked. That second half of me thinks that the user would make a better admin if given a little more time in harness. --Orlady (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral I'm not so sure about this user...like many said Mayalld is too much of a deletionist. ♣ Princess  Clown  ♥ 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral - I was certain that I'd support based on my standards, but I am dismayed by the lack of judgment on speedy deletions. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral per WilyD/Bearian. I'd like to see more growth, but stupid speedies isn't a reason to oppose for me. -- David  Shankbone  05:08, 3 February 2009 (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.