Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melburnian


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

Melburnian
(45/7/7), final Andre (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

- Melburnian joined us in November '05, and has been a regular contributor since then. I have been bumping into him on-wiki for quite a few months now, and am very impressed with his constant demeanour. Day in, day out, he is friendly and polite to one and all. He holds sensible opinions, expresses himself articulately, and appears to possess the rare ability to abstain from speaking when he has nothing much to say. I've learned a little myself from the way he goes about his business. He can be trusted with the extra tabs. Hesperian 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept, and thank Hesperian for his nomination --Melburnian 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Building an encylopaedia is only successful if we have a stable environment that will not only sustain our endeavours, but assures they will be further built upon in the future. To this end I would happy to assist in whatever anministrative capacities are required, within the limits of my knowledge and abilities. I will continue to revert vandalism and will be happier to apply warnings, knowing that I can personally follow through with any necessary back-up action.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My greatest interest at Wikipedia is article creation, particularly with regard to my primary interest, plants (I am a member of WP:PLANTS), although I have tried my hand at a broad range of topics. I have created around 260 new articles and have expanded and actively maintain many more. This is a selection of articles that I have created:
 * Ross, Tasmania
 * Telopea speciosissima
 * Cercis siliquastrum
 * Footscray Park
 * Boroondara General Cemetery
 * City Square, Melbourne


 * Another interest for me is photography, and I currently have around 130 photographs within articles.
 * Melbourne gallery
 * Australian plants gallery
 * plants gallery


 * 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: Conflict covers a wide gamut, but I haven't been involved in a situation that's personally caused me undue stress. Passionate debate is simultaneously a form of conflict and conflict resolution and is a healthy aspect of Wikipedia which I enjoy observing and participating in. However, conflict which involves personal attacks of any nature should not be tolerated. I always aim to be respectful and empathetic when addressing differing points of view from my own, and am always careful to discuss any potential areas for conflict logically and calmly. I strongly believe that we need to maintain Wikipedia as a supportative and friendly environment for genuine contributors.


 * 4. From G1ggy: Can you please expand on your question 1 answer? Which areas specifically do you envisage spending most of your time in?
 * A: AfD is something I'm constantly monitoring and participate in, but as an administrator I would feel obliged to step-up my presence there, and anyway I enjoy the debates :). I do a lot of vandal reverting (although they have been unusually quiet on my watchlist lately) but I feel the tools will assist me to do a better job in vandal fighting. In terms of admin-specific duties, I see myself most involved with helping with speedy deletion backlog and checking other items at CAT:AB, follow-up action at WP:AIV, monitoring of Special:Unwatchedpages and moving pages over redirects with histories, the latter particularly related to bringing plant articles in line with WP:NC(flora).--Melburnian 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. Optional Question from Arknascar44: In your own words, what is the difference between a block and a ban?
 * A: A block is the technical action of an administrator to prevent users damaging or disrupting Wikipedia, whereas a ban is a decision, arising from community consensus following a dispute resolution process, to revoke editing privileges. --Melburnian 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. Optional Question from User:Rocksanddirt How much time to you spend on WP now?  (either per day or per week), and how do you see that changing if you were to become an admin?
 * A: Aside from working full time, sleeping, eating, and socialising (although even those may be interrupted by watchlist checking) Wikipedia gets most of the remainder of my time. However I do go travelling from time to time, necessitating an extended wikibreak. In terms of wiki-time, when I'm not editing online I'm spending a lot of time researching articles, looking for references on the net and in books, writing and going on photo expeditions. Although I’m not able to increase my wiki-time, if I were to become an admin the on-line editing proportion of that time would inevitably increase.--Melburnian 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Melburnian:

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

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Per my nomination. Hesperian 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support long-time contributor of real content with a mature and sensible demeanour. Will make a good sysop.  &mdash;Moondyne 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good editor, with a healthy edit count. I see no major problems! Politics rule 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plenty of article building. Little wikipoliticing. Plenty of communication. —Hermione dies! (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support There has been lots of article building from this candidate. No specific edits jump out at me (unless I'm missing something).  Suggest that you do a little vandal fighting so you know when and when not to block users.  Good luck, ( [ →] vish  win60  - review) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support What vish said =) &mdash;  trey  jay–jay 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support We all have different skills, and very few of us have all of them. This user will make good use of his particular skills as an admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support: you have proven that you can be trusted with the tools, and I think that you will make a good admin. It does seem that you haven't had a lot of experience dealing with heated topics, you may want to roll up your sleeves and participate in some afd debates or similar just to get your feet wet. -- MisterHand 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Seems to be an excellent and trusted editor. I agree with Hesperian's comments below. We need more administrators who understand the encyclopedia, not just the policies and processes. --Bduke 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I trust Melburnian not to abuse the tools, if he needs more talks pages edits, there 18,000+ WP:AUS still needing assessment and rating I'm sure there WP:PLANTS other projects have similar assessment needs. Gnangarra 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gnang, more template edits and ratings etc slapped on talk pages isn't going to help. All it will do is artificially inflate the stats but I don't think anyone who seriously reviews candidates, and there are actually quite a few of us here who do so, is going to be fooled by that. Sarah 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarah, perhaps Gnang is obliquely referring to other candidates such as this running concurrently where support !votes there seem to place importance of inflated statistics through mindless tagging and voting edits. &mdash;Moondyne 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatively he may just have been adding a bit of levity to the discussion; I'm certain that it wasn't a serious suggestion. &mdash;Moondyne 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually think that Gnang was being serious, but a lot of people do come to RfA with artificially bloated contribs and I think it needed a response. Sarah 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A trusted and reliable editor who can be relied upon not to abuse the tools. Will make an excellent admin. -- Mattinbgn/talk 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. changed from oppose You are a great contributor, and you will definately help the encyclopedia. M queries on my oppose below have been answered by others, in regards to the oppose below mine. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Simple: I trust this user. It's not something I can say about a lot of candidates.  Daniel  08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - trustworthy and strong editor - that's quite unusual in RfA. ck lostsword•T•C 10:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I like an admin who doesn't set out to become one. So the user is not 'chatty,' - I'm over it. There are so many complaints that potential admins lack article building experience. So I say let's rectify that and create a diverse and qualified pool of administrators. (I totally pulled the diversity card) the_undertow talk  11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking for more than 67 user talk page edits (again, half of which were to mates) in, what, nearly a two year period does not translate as looking for "chatty" candidates. Sarah 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He's clearly spent the majority of his time writing articles. Therefore, interaction would most likely take place on the discussion pages of the articles. What types of conversations would you like to see with other editors? the_undertow talk  20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any arbitrary demands for the types of conversations, just that there is a reasonable amount of interaction and there really isn't very much on article talk either when you overlook templating, tagging, notices, etc. I would also REALLY like to see participation in XfD given he has stated an intent to work in XfD as an admin but has only made about ten edits to XfD in the last couple of years. Sarah 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Contributions in Wikipedia processes (deletion, etc.) is limited, but is not empty either. From what I can see of various talk-space contributions, the opinions and comments are sensible and polite. The candidate is well-experienced, and can be trusted with admin tools. Exceptionally strong contributions in writing articles is a huge plus as well as it demonstrates insight into the main Wikipedia product, and makes for an excellent role model. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The candidate is a good contributor. Majoreditor 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, seems bright and sensible enough. Neil   ╦  13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support — This is a good candidate and receives my full support. Matthew 14:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support reliable person. — An as  talk? 14:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - This is an established editor with a history of solid contributions to the project who can be trusted to use the tools responsibly. Hiberniantears 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I agree with what Neil and Matthew said. Acalamari 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I am quite pleased with the comment in Q1 which suggests the need to maintain a stable environment. I also associate my self with those opposing G1ggy's comments below. In perusing every oppose vote below (as of this moment) I see nothing other than "maybe's" and "I don't knows." In the absence of objective evidence to the contrary, I support.  Jody B talk 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Strong contributor of content, see no reason why this user won't be able to handle the tools, no matter where s/he decides to help out. Recurring dreams 08:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, from my own observations, Melburnian is a pleasant, hardworking editor, and that he comes recommended by Hesperian means a very great deal. Although I find Sarah's statements very persuasive, and suspect they will sway the majority of those considering the candidate, I personally sympathise with the view that we need more encyclopædia-focused administrators and believe Melburnian is worth taking a chance on. I can't foresee any problems resulting from the candidate being enabled with a few extra tabs.--cj | talk 11:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support One of the finer contributors on wikipedia. Wiki needs more "main-space admins" and more admins in general. Seems to do everything right, im sure he wont fall in a big heap and go crazy deleting stuff, so why not trust him with the articles? Twenty Years 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. This user is very different from me. That is to say, he actually spends most of his wiki-time improving articles, while I tend to discuss everything over and over again till everyone gets bored. :-) Anyway, I feel this user is a good candidate. Just as I don't see the point in opposing candidates for "not enough article editing", I also don't think it's fair to oppose them for "not enough discussion". Wikipedians are very diverse; some participate in a lot of discussions, some focus on maintenance work, some write and improve articles. All these things are valuable, and all can make a good admin. WaltonOne 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Good 'pedia builder. I have stumbled over plenty of articles where Melburnian's been there first. I resent the idea of a pedia builders and admins being separate. I find most of my admin functions I use are the ones related to 'pedia building (uncontroversial moves and protects) The ultimate question is whether wikipedia will have a net benefit from this tilt at adminship being successful and the answer is clearly yes cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support a good candidate who will use the tools when necessary in his development of articles within his sphere of focus. So Melburnian won't be up there clearing great swathes through CSD, AfD or vandals, but every blocked page move, nonsense talk page delete, history merge, bad image clear, or page protect he performs within his area of expertise will be one less thing to do for every other admin.  He won't abuse the tools.  --Steve (Stephen)talk 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Perfectly good candidate. Rebecca 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support See nothing to sugget will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) weak support. Strong constributor to the encyclopedia, no evidence to suggest he'll abuse the tools. I'm not impressed by the low participation in WP:space, but answers to questions seem to indicate knowledge and ability to learn. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong Support - User has made many encyclopaedic contributions, I see on reason to think they would abuse admin tools.--Bryson 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support- Per above. Would make good admin.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Support Melburnian on every occasion I've run into him has been helpful, cooperative and civil. He works hard on improving articles, some of which began in a truly awful state, and has contributed very high quality photos to several articles I've written or worked on (hence how I came across him to begin with). I think he'll make an excellent admin. Orderinchaos 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - not all admins spend hours and hours doing admin activity (although admittedly the encyclopedia would be much improved if they did). I would like to think that my successful RFA was justified, despite the fact that I average less than 200 log entries per year (including page moves...). ugen64 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - good candidate and strongest among all those listed. VK35 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)  sockpuppet indefinitely blocked, appologies to Melburnian he trying to garnish my support Gnangarra 05:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per nom. Wonderful and dedicated writer, and those talk page edits confirm his sensibility and civility. He will use with the tools responsibly, no doubt at all. Peacent 01:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support The concerns of Sarah are, to be sure, not insignificant, especially for those of us who continue to believe that one's mainspace editing is generally altogether irrelevant to his fitness for adminship, but the candidate here appears, on the whole, to be possessed of the sound judgment, civil demeanor, and deliberative disposition the presence of which are quite propitious in a prospective admin, such that I think it likely that he will not act abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he does not know [Xoloz is quite right to observe that there is no grand record here from which to determine Melburnian's conversance with policy and that it is probably fair to say that he is not as familiar with policies generally as are other candidates whom one encounters]) the tools and that one can conclude with some confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 03:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support wether he uses the admin tools once a day or once a year, the overall benefit will be to the project. If he was requesting administrator status to be like me, write the encyclcopedia little, but involve himself heavily with the various noticeboards, CAT:CSD], WP:AIV, WP:RFCN and WP:UAA as well as the policy pages WP:DEL, WP:CSD and WP:BLP like I am I would expect to see large amounts of activity in those areas. However he is not, he is putting himself as a great editor that can help the encyclopedia by applying admin tools in his areas of interest. Those that oppose must ask yourself wether you trust the user with the tools... can you trust him to not maliciously fuck things up, not run roughshod over consensus? I believe we can. No user gets to this level editing without playing nice, warning signs would have appeared a long time ago. So, having established you trust him, can we now establish that should he make a mistake, he will accept any critiscism/suggestions for change graciously? That should he make a mistake it won't be irreversable? That requires a little bit more of a stretch, but I believe since we have already established that he is an editor with a good reputation and an easy demenour that has demonstrated through his dedication to improving the encyclopedia that he is working for the benefit of the encyclopedia not against it, and should therefore should be a good admin who is open to constructive critiscism etc, as all admins should be. Viridae Talk 07:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Looks okay to me. Deb 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Demonstrated commitment. ~ Infrangible 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -- good user. Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support A.Z. 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. We need more admins who care about and work on improving articles, not just people who've reverted vandalism a couple of thousand times and never dealt with anything else. TomTheHand 12:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose. From what I can see, this user has very little vandal-fighting experience, as well as Wikipedia: namespace edits. I would recommend participating more in AFD's and other wikipedia namespace stuff. You have a heap of mainspace/talk/etc edits, and I would normally support, but you need more experience with the maintenance side of things. I will change my vote if you can tell me specifically what you will improve on once you become an admin. Apart from my concerns above, I believe you are a great candidate who would definately help out. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) This user has made 113 edits to the project space. I had about the same in my first RfA, but I had a total of 600 edits, so you can see the difference there.  I just don't feel comfortable trusting Melburnian with the mop and bucket when he has such limited participation in administrative tasks.  I also have very little idea of how the user would use the tools, but Q4's answer may change this.  Obviously the mainspace work is commendable, but you don't need the tools to do that.  Giggy  UCP 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *I can't presume to speak for Melburnian here, but in my opinion being granted the admin tools does not oblige one to engage in vandal fighting, cleanup tasks or even policy formulation, so I don't see how further participation in these tasks would make it easier for you to judge of his trustworthiness. And I absolutely reject the notion that administrators should be drawn only from the pool of editors that work in these areas; on the contrary, I think we need more administrators that are genuinely active in building the encyclopedia. Hesperian 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my opinion is the opposite. I believe that administrator tools should not be granted to editors who don't work in those areas, because they may be overwhelmed by the work when the receive them.  Better for everyone to let them not have the tools, and continue building the 'pedia.  Giggy  UCP 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Giggy, I have four featured articles and over 1300 administrator actions, so I am in a prime position to state that you are simply wrong. Having the admin tools is a definite advantage to those editors who would build the encyclopedia, and the notion that encyclopedia-builders may be overwhelmed by an entirely voluntary workload simply has no basis in reality. It has never happened in six years of adminning people, and there's no evidence to suggest that it ever will. On the contrary, it is the vandal-fighters and AN/I crowd that burn out and quit. Hesperian 04:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Giggy, [uncivil comment removed] I presume it was meant as a joke. Per WP:AAAD: "Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.  While it's great if administrators are active and use the tools they have, a contributor who uses the administrators' tools once a month still benefits the community."  For heavens sake, Adminship is not meant to be a big deal.  I wonder how many potential good contributors have walked away after having had their efforts speedily deleted by well-meaning but clueless administrators who don't have a feel or empathy for the effort that goes into creating something from nothing. &mdash;Moondyne 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) *I respect other opinions and wouldnt normally comment, neither would I expect you to change your iopiniuon. As you comment is being considered a reason to vote neutral I feel obliged to highlight that your RFA was opposed due to lack of experience because you had only 600 total edits, it wasnt for the number of talk page edits. Gnangarra 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention talk page edits ;) The only reason I mentioned my RfA was to indicate that this candidate has done a lot more work overall then I had when I ran, and yet he has done as much in the project space that I had (talking about ratios, pretty much).  Thus, I am hesitant to support when I can't judge his work in the project space (see my response to Hesperian above).  Giggy  UCP 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Inexperience is wiki-space leaves the candidate ill-suited to perform many administrative tasks. Please return to RfA in three months, after having tested the waters there more extensively. Xoloz 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose with apologies and respect for the candidate and particularly, the nominator. I just can't support someone who has less than 70 user talk edits (and at least half of those are edits to talk pages of friends). I don't like arbitrary RfA standards and I always try to evaluate candidates holistically, but I honestly believe that communication skills in admins is a critical quality and becomes increasingly so as the site's popularity increases. 67 user talk edits is not in the MCG of being enough for me. I would defer to article talk but unfortunately there have only been 346 article talk edits since 5 November 2005 and WP talk isn't much help either with only 19 total edits. I looked closely at article talk but the vast majority are template placement and ratings, notices, reverts and other minor edits. This RfA will probably pass anyway, but I'm sorry I personally can't support it. A very large part of admin work involves communication and ~400 total user talk, article talk and WP talk edits since November 2005 doesn't let me get an idea of your ability to communicate with people, particularly problem and difficult people, rather than just your friends. Sorry Melburnian. And sorry Hesp. Sarah 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Also, I see that Melburnian is a great contributor to content. As we are often told, adminship isn't a big deal, but it also isn't a reward, a ranking of important or quality editors or the pinnacle of participation. You currently don't do much vandal fighting, and though you stated in your answer to question four, "AfD is something I'm constantly monitoring and participate in", I could only find around ten edits to XfD since November 2005, and you have stated that your primary interest at Wikipedia is article creation. There's no rule that says that all our valued editors must become admins and in all honesty, I don't think we'd be doing you or the project any favours by making you an admin. I think you should be left in peace to continue creating the valued content you have stated wish to create, without being distracted by the rubbish which so often distracts and absorbs the time of admins. Sarah 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Need a little bit more WP edits to get better versed with WP policy. Corpx 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose. This was no fun.  One of the few applicants whom I've seen lately that's not obsessed with the process instead of building an encyclopedia.  Unfortunately, I'm concerned that they have not spent time in the talkspace of articles and in fighting vandalism.  I really like the fact that they are involved editors of a wide range of articles.  I think the applicant needs to learn the rules, help in policing articles (even ones outside of their immediate experience).  Maybe next time, I'll be wildly in support.  Orangemarlin 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose a combination of the above opposition votes has lead me to vote this way. While I wouldn't oppose yo simply for the low number of WP edits, but the low number of those combined with lack of user talk edits (most of those you have made were to your friends talk pages) has led me to my position.   New England  17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The low number of WP and UT edits does not adequately demonstrate the level of experience and need for the tools that I am looking for. I applaud the user's contributions and suggest a further nomination after further experience has been gained, which I would support. --John 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I like the article building and such, but am somewhat discouraged by the only 67 user talk edits so far. I believe and admin should communicate and communicate often with others.  I want to support, but this is just nagging me a bit too much.  Jmlk  1  7  20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I have been forced into this position after considering the comments of both the opposes and supports. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral There is so much dedicated work here that to oppose seems wrong. However I am deeply worried about your lack of user interaction - an admin will be involved in contentious decisions and an ability to communicate is essential - and this is simply not evidenced by ~ 70 user talk page contributions. I have no reason to doubt you can communicate but no reasons to believe that you can either. Sorry, but best wishes in this RFA. Pedro |  Chat 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. A high post count does not a good editor make, Plus, I've read a lot of this editor's work and it is outstanding. However, an admin needs to have a strong background in dealing with the project's administrative functions. I don't feel that it's bad to have an admin that works entirely in Wikipedia proper, nor do I feel that it's bad to have an admin who works entirely on project space. But a candidate should show a strong understanding of both. I would like to see a few more project space edits. Trusilver 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Solid contributions to encyclopedia building; however, I too am worried that the editor lacks experience in communication and wikipedia project space at this time. Espresso Addict 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, leaning support An excellent editor. Nothing in your contribs suggest you will abuse the tools. However, there is very little that I can tell about your ability to deal with heated conflicts and your ability to judge consensus from your limited WP: and talk edits. Borisblue 06:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. Very solid contributions to encyclopedia building; however, I too am worried that the editor lacks experience in communication - achieving consensus requires communication and only 67 talk page edits? I will support next nomination if the candidate vastly increases communication with others in the interim. old windy bear 14:24, 14 July 2007 (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.