Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RockMFR


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

RockMFR
[ Final] (35/21/7); Ended Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:51:18 (UTC)

- I have to start this one with a very tired cliche- I was astounded to discover that RockMFR is not an admin as I had long believed. So let me tell you why I think he is a strong candidate for the job. RockMFR has experience of policy in a wide range of areas of Wikipedia. He is frequently involved in XfD discussions of all sorts where his comment are well beyond mere votes, making comments that are helpful and build the discussion. A few examples across the spectrum of deletion debates: AfD, RfD , CfD , TfD , MfD and DRV. He even closes discussions in uncontroversial circumstances,. He has demonstrated his ability to find speedy delete candidates through new page patrol (as well as tagging less clear candidates appropriately ) and by identifying those listed at AfD that in fact meet the speedy criteria. His contribs history also show experience with image licenses and fair use, rounding off his suitability to deal with our various backlogs.

RockMFR has also made a number of productive posts to WP:AN and WP:ANI, e.g and. Vandal fighting is far from his primary area of activity but his contributions show that he is familiar with policy and he makes appropriate warnings/reports.

He is an active contributor at Featured article candidates and has a long history of fixing pages to comply with WP:MOS, including page moves to ensure naming conventions are followed. His mainspace contribs appear to match the quality of his projectspace input- he was heavily involved in getting the article GameFAQs up to FA status. For those interested he has been around and active since September 2006 and has over 10,000 edits.

RockMFR has a clear need for the tools and a number of areas of Wikipedia will in my opinion benefit greatly for his sysopping. WjBscribe 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yup, I accept. Let's do this! --- RockMFR 06:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A: I do random stuff all over the place, so I'll probably be everywhere. Keeping the CSD backlog down, obviously. Edit requests on protected pages, error reports on the main page, image deletion backlogs (starting with the basic ones &mdash; I don't feel confident about touching replaceable fair use images or commons stuff yet). Copyright problems is another thing I'd like to become familiar with, as copyright violations are my biggest pet-peeve. Legal/death threats bug me, too &mdash; if I came across a legal/physical threat, I would block indefinitely first and ask questions later. These sorts of things can not be taken lightly.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I really enjoy cleaning up minor things that get overlooked. Dealing with broken redirects, fixing citation templates, clearing out mistakenly-populated redlink categories. Of course, I have to mention GameFAQs here. I've spent a lot of time searching and researching and finding every possible usable secondary source. Getting that article up to featured status taught me pretty much everything I know in terms of the mainspace &mdash; policies, guidelines, manual of style, templates, categorization, references. Being able to look at a featured article and say, "oh, this can be fixed, this isn't right, I can make this better!" is quite nice.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I had some conflicts at GameFAQs (some as an anon, some as a registered user), mostly of the "should this be included in this article?" variety. Another early dispute was the use of favicons in website infoboxes. I was against this and boldly removed them all. I believe it was reverted and I reverted back, though I now realize that such large-scale changes should be discussed first, as reverting back and forth in such situations is even more harmful than normal. I've learned a lot and have become much more civil than I was when I first started editing. I think my first conflict involved reverting three times and then being uncivil on a talk page. Gradually I learned that reverting multiple times is pretty useless. One of the most important things I've learned is to make sure to explain edits (summaries or talk pages), especially if another user disagrees with you. I try my best to "keep it real" &mdash; if something is wrong with an article, I'll speak my thoughts (whether it be at Afd, FAC, a talk page, etc). I don't really get stressed &mdash; there's no reason to. Things can always be changed, compromised, deleted, undeleted, discussed... Everything can be fixed, and in then end, a good decision can be reached on almost every issue.


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Wow, I too am surprised that RockMFR is not yet an administrator. I think Rock would be a great administrator. Any concerns? --Iamunknown 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) I am extremely surprised by the Community's response to this candidate, which frankly I do not understand. Backlogs are growing in a number of areas that sysop access is needed to clear. There is a consensus that we need more admins. This candidate's ability to assist in these areas is undeniable. Apparently however he has ruffled the wrong feathers. In the debates related to Esperanza everyone expressed themselves strongly- the discussions were heated. Did RockMFR go too far? I don't think so. He made his point clearly based on his observations of the actions of other parties. I note that Alphachimp never explained why he deleted content that Mailer Diablo's close clearly stated should not be deleted. Had he not understood the close, he should not have participated in implemeting it. Could RockMFR have expressed himself more diplomatically? Certainly. But should that be enough to disqualify a candidate with broad experience of admin-related areas? This is not an issue of biting newbies or showing general incivility, but arguing in strong terms with long-term users. Has challenging the actions of administrators recently become forbidden? Personally I regard it as healthy- we should all be willing to explain our actions when challenged... I am unswayed from my support of this candidate. RockMFR would be a useful and productive admin. I am sorry if has in expressing himself honestly upset people but adminship is no big deal, and I see no reason to believe he would abuse admin tools were this RfA to be successful. WjBscribe 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment: he looks fabulous as a candidate. I'm sure he'll do a great job 74.12.81.85 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so too; as WjB pointed out, Rock already contributes to a lot of functional and administrative pages. Sure, as alphachimp pointed out, Rock may not always assume good faith, but is that really a metric by which we should be supporting or opposing potential administrators? It is clear that Rock is willing and qualified to use the extra tools; should we judge based on anything else? I don't know my thoughts, feel free to offer your opinions.. --Iamunknown 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since a lot of opposes have come in simply "per Alphachimp" (10+), I find it hard to believe that anybody has stopped to think whether there is anything very wrong about the comments in Alphachimp's diffs. I, for one, notice that the quotes were in the context of a disagreement with Alphachimp. Considering that the oppose and the conflict seem to be of a personal nature to Alphachimp, I find these opposes troubling, and unmerited. -- Renesis (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not his disagreement or my position that is relevant. It's the overarching issue of failing to observe decorum and assume good faith. While the first diff makes an (admittedly offensive) statement disagreeing with me, the second one goes on to respond with a possibly sarcastic statement that makes quite clear RockMFR's opinion on AGF. Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose people who disagree with me. I think a certain level of debate is necessary to achieve consensus. It's healthy for the community. But when a debate over the interpretation of an MfD closure moves into discerning and attacking the motives of other editors, something is seriously wrong. From the comments of other editors, it certainly looks like this is both a longstanding and serious problem. This is not an issue of my holding a grudge or RockMFR ruffling the wrong feathers.  alphachimp  04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Beat The Nom Support, great user, would do very well with the tools. Good luck! – Riana talk 06:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support somewhat weakened by points brought up by Alphachimp and Gaillimh, but it would be hypocritical of me not to AGF on your part, so I will chalk it up to a temporary failure of judgement, for now. However, temporary failures of judgement can lead to admin abuse. I am not going to oppose, because his great work in other areas shows me that he could handle the buttons well enough. – Riana ऋ 06:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support as nom. Well, I almost got here first... WjBscribe 06:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Thought he was one already as well. VegaDark 07:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Good work at RFD and other places. John Reaves (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Whatever. Adminship is no big deal. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - the diffs provided by Alphachimp do not seem out of line at all to me, considering "I can't possibly assume every deletion was the result of a good faith interpretation" is a fair statement -- not every deletion is the result of a good faith interpretation. In addition, the diffs provided by KNcyu38 cause no concern for me, since the two RFAs in question failed overwhelming.  It would be a shame to not support this user just because of opposition to two very-distinctly failed RFAs. RockMFR has an excellent track record, per the nomination, and will do a good job with the tools. -- Renesis (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Support Seems to be reliable but the people who are opposing you have made some good points so I can not vote strong support. Good luck:) --James, La gloria è a dio 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Support Scored 20.5 on my Admin Assessment Scale, this user passed by .5. But some fair comments below in the Oppose section, -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Unconditional support inspite of the opposition. RockMFR is one of the most productive XFD contributors that I've seen in the last month or so.  His judgment can be trusted when it comes to deletion and to any administrative function.  His vast experience speaks strongly in his favor. YechielMan 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per Renesis-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support great user, and ignore the two concerns. The Esperanza debate is one that a lot of people had their strong opinions on.  It really doesn't worry me.  As for opposing an RFA due to the trust factor, I totally agree with him.  The point of a support vote is that you believe that not only are they qualified, but they can be trusted.  If you think his vote is bad in that situation, hold it across the board.  No supports or Opposes because of it.  I believe a trust factor is a major thing, and congradulate him for using it.  Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, RockMFR seems very dedicated to cleanup duties etc., and would do well as an administrator. The issues raised in the oppose section seem to be harsh nitpicking that definitely won't affect his hypothetical duties or trustworthiness. --Teggles 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - the Esperanza deletion arguments and various repercussions are finished and otherwise an excellent candidate. Addhoc 09:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - There was a lot of nastiness with the Esperanza deletions and deletion reviews, emotions were running high at that time and I know behavior that was displayed during any of the discussions by so many people was certainly not typical of their behavior anywhere else or at any other time. -- Nick  t  13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak Support I'm surprised that KNcyu38 is opposing due to some very sensible oppose votes in RfAs by RockMFR. Xiner (talk, a promise) 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you addressed me directly: I'm opposing per alphachimp. And additionally per what I perceive as bad faith assuming RfA voting comments like "I don't trust this user", "I have a gut feeling they would not use the tools well at all", "I'm also a bit uncomfortable with anyone who edits a lot around controversial subjects, especially if I'm unable to get a good grasp of their intentions/POV (a bit too measured, one might say)", or the "Pile on!" diff provided by gaillimh. RockMFR's votes may have been sensible, if you say so, but not those comments. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In case above comment doesn't shed sufficient light on the substantiality of my AGF concerns (and since this is not a vote, but a discussion): Can it arguably be a good idea to put up an optional question on an RfA, asking "Do you edit with any other accounts?" without providing a rationale for that question? Those are the reasons I have to oppose this RfA. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a discussion. Why has no one edited the section, oh, labeled "Discussion" except for me and one anonymous user?  We could all talk about these things before we get to the actual approval process.  --Iamunknown 22:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The small font is near unreadable on a high resolution computer screen (mine is just 1680 x 1050 and I had to move right up to the screen), just letting you know. Quadzilla99 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then unsmallify it. --Iamunknown 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're normally not supposes to change the comments of others. I assume he wanted it small so I was letting him know. Quadzilla99 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You may, however, refactor talk- and other functional-pages to improve readability. --Iamunknown 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but since I think it's an important point: "Like refactoring in computing, refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors." I think small is likely part of the "full intentions" of the original authors, and so it would in most cases be up to the author to change it. -- Renesis (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I fail to see, however, how making small text large modifies the text to the point that it is no longer part of the full intention of the author.  --Iamunknown 05:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you're talking about now, Kncyu38, although I still disagree. I'm modifying my vote to Weak Support, however, as a (probably unnecessary) reminder that rhetoric is less useful than more measured words in arguments. Xiner (talk, a promise) 00:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) [Moral] Support as a fellow CVG member &mdash; although I agree with the points made below, and think that if you make the recommended adjustments, you will be fine on your next RfA. &mdash; Deckiller 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) support I dunno, my one encounter with this guy was an argument that was borderline civil. On both parts. Yeah he's argumentative but RfA is pretty lame when it just promotes the sort of people who never offend anyone. There's more to Wikipedia than just being obsequious. So basically I think Rock appears to be doing the right kind of work, even if he's argumentative sometimes. --W.marsh 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support looks acceptable.-- danntm T C 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support think the mop'll be used well. Alphachimp's point is well worth taking on board but I'm assuming that you will do so. MLA 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as I see no indication the tools would be abused, and I see plenty to indicate that RockMFR would be an extremely valuable admin. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe
 * 6) Support A trustworthy user and deserves the mop. I feel that a disagreement in deletion does not disqualify adminship in this case.  Reywas92 Talk 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. The opposition is utterly unconvincing to me. The Esperenza affair was overflowing with high emotions and a number of current respected admins said some things a touch stronger than the user's comments. It doesn't excuse any behaviour, but rather is simply an observation. The RfA participation reason is bizarre, to me. After all, oppose !votes are pretty much by their nature indicate the !voter does not trust the nominee. Claims about off-site behaviour are a bit dodgy to me, particularly without any proof. Finally, the nominee's response regarding physical/legal threats is spot on, as we should not tolerate serious threats on Wikipedia. Vassyana 10:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support The Esperanza DRV was a mess and many people made mistakes and therefore i don't see why i can't support this user who has dedicated much good and hard work to wikipedia. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) You know what, I'm going to support this RfA. I don't see any indication that RockMFR will implode Wikipedia with admin buttons. Their wide experience with processes - XfD, FA, RfA etc... - lends a credibility that, combined with the very good articlespace edits, I think should be enough for promotion to adminship. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -- I've read the opposing comments and I do not find the diffs especially alarming since, in addition to saying he had a bad feeling about a candidate, he also cited specifics. So I see no evidence of failure to AGF. Then there's the whole Esperanza cluster f__k in which many otherwise well-respected, temperate and judicious editors and admins on both sides made ill-advised comments they probably all now regret. I'm not sure RockMFR's were especially out of line. --A. B. (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - A user well-versed in Xfds who I believe will do nothing but good with admin tools. Wickethewok 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Highly qualified candidate. I see no reason to oppose Arfan 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support The nomination makes some excellent points, candidate is well qualified as stated by others above, and will use the tools well, especially on areas mentioned above and in nom.  Smee 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
 * 14) Definite support. Solid and detailed contributor, works well with others.  Adminship is no big deal.  +sj + 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. This is ridiculous. This candidate is more than qualified, and now the RfA voters are lynching him based on one comment. This user will make a great admin. --Rory096 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Weak Support, alphachimp's oppose doesn't convince me.-- Wizardman 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I don't like to be one of those "per" people, but User:A. B. and User:Vassyana were very (how do I say this) ...convincing maybe? They were reading my mind concerning many of the points brought up by the oppose votes. Although I don't know this user personally, whenever I ran into them, it was in a positive light. Finally, I hope I'm not the only person who saw a little irony in user:Kncyu38's oppose (citing "RfA participation seems not always to be based on the assumption of good faith" then directly quoting them in an oppose? Interesting tactic).--Clyde (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - and I do wonder if some of the oppose voters have actually read Wikipedia policy recently :-) ugen64 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - Appears knowledgeable of policy and to generally act in the best interests of the encyclopedia. An occasional failure to AGF is a flaw but I believe his adminship will represent a net gain to the project. &mdash;dgies tc 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Well-qualified nominee with extensive contributions. I hope the closing bureaucrat realizes that almost all of the Opposes are just parrotings of one guy's comment. --Hemlock Martinis 06:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about my comment. It raised a legitimate issue that I have yet to see addressed. Others agree that this issue was a real problem. alphachimp  06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I'm really concerned about your ability to assume good faith of other editors. Of particular concern to me are your comments in admittedly messy Esperanza DRV. In them, you accused the closing administrators of just not liking MailerDiablo's closure. When confronted with the statement, you responded that "I can't possibly assume every deletion was the result of a good faith interpretation". Assuming good faith (both of new and old users) is a fairly important skill for an administrator, and I'm concerned that you do not have it. alphachimp  07:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Alphachimp. In addition to that, RfA participation seems not always to be based on the assumption of good faith:, , . In RockMFR's own words, "I don't trust this user," and to me this outweighs a need for the tools. Call it "a gut feeling", if you will. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to change my participation on RFA's. Asking questions and opposing candidates who don't quite meet expections is an essential part of the process. My only RFA participation I regret is a few cases where I did not look closely enough before supporting a user. --- RockMFR 16:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. per Alphachimp and Kncyu38. Both raise concerns about RockMFR the would call into question there need for adminship. --Masterpedia 14:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the concerns raised by Alphachimp and Kncyu39. --cj | talk 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose Originally, I wasn't sure where I remembered the candidate from or if it was a positive or negative memory. I searched my edits and found that I left a comment on the user's talk page one time with regards to this edit.  Having seen the opposition reference similar edits made by this user leads me to believe that these edits are not simply mistakes, but a long-standing behavioural issue.  As such, I have reservations about giving RockMFR additional responsibilities.  gaillimh Conas tá tú? 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Alphachimp. Michael 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per alphachimp. --Shizane 13:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Alphachimp. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Alphachimp. Xoloz 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose also per Alphachimp. Quadzilla99 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per above. Too argumentative. Just H 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per above, and from personal interactions of user. (Off-site so no diffs)--Toffile 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per above, as well as through previous dealings with said user (off-site as well). Dbm11085 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Oppose - Per above. Ideals such as "...if I came across a legal/physical threat, I would block indefinitely first and ask questions later..." are the kind which wikipedia doesn't need & this gung ho type of attitude is the kind that gives admins a bad name & causes them to be mistrusted throughout. I'm actually quite surprised that other editors haven't picked up on this comment & I'm also surprised by the number of what I thought were reputible editors supporting this nomiantion. Come back when you decide to follow policy & AGF... Thanks, Spawn Man 05:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, most administrators do block legal threateners on sight or, if not, after a single warning. It's no biggie... --Iamunknown 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a "biggie" in my view - there were many other ways that he could have phrased his ideals rather than selecting a gung ho warning like he did. Admins are meant to be the pick of the crop (why else would we have elections for them), so in my eyes, they should be understanding, calm & listen to both sides of the story before doing anything unless the editor is obviously diruptive & in an extreme manner. You don't see judges sentencing before the trial & you don't see officers impounding cars for a single speeding offence. This user expresses none of my ideal traits of an admin & I feel he would be highly likely to abuse the tools eeither by losing his temper or rashly indef blocking someone. Admins are perscuted enough without having a hot head making it to adminship. Take a look at the major story circulating New Zealand at the moment (link) & you'll see that a few bad eggs can give the rest a bad name. Spawn Man 07:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, I promise not to sexually abuse any users :) But seriously, I wouldn't go around abusing the tools. I merely stated my stance that legal/death threats are not to be taken lightly. This is the stance that almost every admin has, as far as I know. --- RockMFR 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Rock has done some great work, but we simply do not need any more cowboy-admins. There is simply no need to act in the manner highlighted by Gaillimh. Rightly or wrongly, many new users see admin corps as the offical face of Wikipedia, I expect candidates to act with some level of decency and decorum. Rje 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Alphachimp. User:SorryGuy 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Permanently block first and ask questions later? Zero tolerance thinking at its worst, and I am therefore compelled to use the same heavy-handed approach in opposing an admin nominee who has demonstrated by his or her words that he or she cannot be trusted to use good judgment when making the hard calls.  // Internet Esquire 21:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per this AfD comment. It gives me an uneasy feeling RockMFR would abuse the deletion button on the basis an article fails "everything" or make unilateral deletions against consensus. Matthew 19:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I would not make unilateral deletions against consensus. However, in discussions such as that one, the people wanting to keep the article did not address any of the policy-related concerns (specifically, original research). --- RockMFR 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh really? This is coming from the person who put: "Complete lack of any sources whose subject is "Homer Simpson's jobs". Fails every notability guideline. I will be very disappointed if this ends in a head count" - you don't say what notability guideline it fails. You show your ignorance to me that you never even read that article as well, it is indeed referenced; just because an article doesn't have inline references doesn't mean it isn't referenced. I can clearly see lots of episode sources. Matthew 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Alphachimp. Terence 08:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some concerns about this user, lack of ability to assume good faith. --74.53.88.50 13:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IPs can't vote. MER-C 13:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose → Alphachimp & Kncyu38 made a good point.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Alphachimp, Kncyu38, and others, as well as off-site experience. WarpstarRider 08:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Great user but Alphachimp's reason for opposition is important. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Alphachimp's concerns are troubling, but people who started deleting all the pages did ignore part of the closure statement, at least. -Amarkov moo! 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per Alphachimp. Acalamari 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral There are great reasons to support this user, but some just as great concerns have been raised. I cannot decide what to vote, so I will vote neutral. Captain panda  In   vino   veritas  19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral, my perception is that the opposition seems to be focusing on a quite narrow point-of-view, and perhpas not being entirely honest in their motivations. I would advise anybody voting on this RfA to use caution and to truly analyze the matter before effectively casting a vote. --Sn0wflake 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per alphachimp. mrholybrain 's talk 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral - Per Alphachimp-- $U IT  02:19, 2 April 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.