Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sanchom


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

Sanchom
Closed as successful by Cecropia 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC) at (43/4/1); Scheduled to end 09:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- Me :-) A self-nomination. Sancho 09:23, 21 June 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: I will be able to help at WP:AIV, AfD closure, page protection and unprotection, fixing/deleting copyright violations, CSD deletions, and dispute resolution.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: San Salvador (Guipúzcoan squadron) &mdash; was interesting to research, made it to the front page via DYK, well referenced. Royal Canadian Air Cadets &mdash; the article that drew me into editing Wikipedia; as a former cadet, I have forced myself to stick to referenced material to avoid bias and asked for reviews of the neutrality; eventually brought it to GA status. [this edit] &mdash; this was in the middle of a process of trying to get an editor to work nicely with others, it seemed to work for a short time, but eventually the editor reverted to old form and is now blocked indefinitely :-( ...I think this was a "best" contribution because it was in the midst of a quite contrary tone from the other and it displays a style of approaching an adversarial editor that I think works well.


 * 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 don't usually get stressed over conflicts. I did recently get close, but I stepped away before getting involved further (I was trying to mediate a discussion between two editors in a content dispute). Usually in conflicts, I'll be able to talk with the other editor to find out at what level we disagree, or what policy I've misunderstood, etc...

Optional Question from Anonymous Dissident:


 * 4. -- The answer to question 1 is always important to me, as it shows how a user will use the mop. Because you were not very indepth in your answer to question 1, could you please run me/us through the process/means of doing/policies related to each of the following:

1. Afd Closure:
 * A: I would close an AfD discussion as "delete" only if discussion reaches consensus that the article should be deleted. However, having an overwhelming majority of support for a deletion does not equal consensus in this context... weakly argued support or no-argument support gives less to the end result than does support stemming from policy. As well, somebody contributing late to the discussion might add something, like... "I checked all the sources and they all link to a website saying 'this is a hoax ha ha ha'". Okay, pretty contrived :-) but what I'm saying is basically that it is not a vote, and it could possibly require only one good argument (violation of a core policy) amongst weak or non-arguments to achieve this consensus. If the result is not clear at the end of the discussion (as is the case when people disagree about the significance of the coverage that a subject has received, or differences in interpretation of policy where policy gives room for interpretation), the default is to keep. I did close a couple of AfDs previously, out of process as I later realized since they had only a one or two days of discussion and were not candidates for speedy keep: Articles_for_deletion/Bo_Kaspers_Orkester, and Articles for deletion/Infanta Sofía of Spain. I was looking for some easy AfDs to close, but couldn't find any that I could close as "keep" in the 5-day backlog (I guess that was why they were not closed already), so I found a couple of ones that looked like obvious keeps to me... I reviewed the arguments and related policy and couldn't see how they would end up being deleted, so I kept them. Since I realized that closing before the 5-day mark required the discussion to meet the "speedy keep" criteria, I haven't closed an AfD discussion. This is one reason why I think the administrator tools could help me. I could contribute to closing the discussions requiring a bit more work than just posting a "kept" message on the article talk page.

2. Page protection/unprotection:
 * A: Wikipedia is a place where "anyone can edit". We should apply the least restrictive protection that allows the article to be useful to readers and editors. That basically says it all, but I'll give a couple of concrete examples. When vandalism reaches a point such that the article could be expected to be in a state of vandalism at any given time, this is not useful for readers. When editors are allowed to edit war, this is not useful for the editors nor the readers in the long run. As regards unprotection, as soon as it is expected that a lower of protection will still yield a useful article to both readers and editors, protection should be lessened. Sancho 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Blocking a vandal/dealing with a vandal:
 * A: My approach to this is similar to my ideas about page protection. We should use the minimum effort required to stop an editor from decreasing the quality of the encyclopedia. However in the case of a vandal, we must quickly increase what we believe is the minimum required when faced with evidence that our current efforts are not sufficient. Often, I've found, once the editor first notices that somebody has noticed and reverted their "test" and taken the effort to talk to them about it on their talk page, they will stop. I like the four step progression. Some people need two warnings, some people need to hear the word "block", some need to hear "last warning" &mdash; others are undaunted. When it comes to the point of blocking the vandal, it seems that just a short block might be enough to stop vandalism from that IP (the 13 year old at junior high goes for lunch and forgets about Wikipedia). Other times, that short period is not enough. When it becomes apparent that the IP is being used continually and solely for vandalism, I will not hesitate to apply a long term block. The same applies to registered users, but without the apprehension of indefinitely blocking a vandal-only account since there is no chance of collateral effects. I've only talked about blocking as it relates to vandalism, but I would have the same approach towards most other cases such as copyright violation, incivility, attacks, and other things that would require protection of the foundation, or prevention of disruption.

5. Optional question from NSR77

What, exactly, do you feel is the rationale behind the Ignore all rules policy, and how do you think it should be applied in cases of (1) editing disputes, (2) blocking users, and (3) fair use material?
 * A: I believe the rationale is to encourage editors to be bold, to realize that no rule can cover every situation adequately, that all rules were achieved by the consensus of fallible editors, and that the first thing to come to mind is the question of whether or not an action will improve the encyclopedia. I believe it should be applied when considering being bold, anticipating the consensus supporting an action although the action may go against the word of policy. It should not be used in defense against an apparently non-supporting consensus. In editing disputes, one is in active communication with another editor, thus I don't feel there is much room for the application of "ignore all rules" ahead of achieving consensus with the other editor(s).
 * As regards the blocking of users, if ever the delay incurred by following a standard warning schedule or abiding by the listed reasons for blocking would result in probable and imminent harm to a person, the foundation, or the encyclopedia, we should ignore all rules and block the required editor or IP.
 * I think the rules regarding fair-use material differs from most other rules on Wikipedia. Most rules describe the result of consensus regarding how to achieve the goals of the project and expectations on the behaviour of the contributors etc, but the policy regarding inclusion of non-free content stems from copyright law: something that doesn't change with consensus. Ignoring this rule could potentially damage the foundation, and I think only with a strong community consensus should we as a group choose to ignore these rules in single cases, and never as an individual. Sancho 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Question from Haemo

''You mention that you want to be involved in the actionable side of vandal-fighting, through admin intervention and dispute resolution. However, not all "vandalism" or "disputes" are prima facie apparent -- sometimes, users can become very time-consuming for the encyclopedia, while providing no useful contributions; say, continually arguing on talk pages in the face of consensus, edit-warring incessantly, or constantly harassing other users or admins with their disputes. At what point do you believe that a user has demonstrated (1) that they're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, (2) what action needs to be taken to ameliorate the problem, and (3) how do you justify whatever action you end up taking -- where is the "punitive/preventative" split here, even in the face of a user's protests to reform? Finally, (4) how does your answer change if it is clear the user is a single-purpose account?''
 * Initially, we must first assume that the user simply hasn't been explained the expectations of this community that they have joined. Sarcastic humour, personal attacks, and similar incivility are common place on almost any other forum on the internet. Much of what Wikipedia is comes from us working together; if after attempts to change a hostile editor's behaviour, the editor is still not willing to work with the rest of us, I would be satisfied that the editor is not here to contribute, or at least not here to contribute with the rest of us. The first step to resolution would be talking to the editor: explain to them exactly how their behaviour needs to change if they want to continue to be a contributor to Wikipedia.
 * If the editor continues to be a disruption, the next step really depends on the situation. Something as simple as ignoring the hostile editor might be enough to have them lose interest. If the disruption is larger (edit-warring for example), a block would be necessary to allow the productive activities to continue unimpeded. This would be primarily preventative (to avoid further disruption), but it does have the punitive side-effect of letting the editor know clearly that their behaviour is not acceptable. My answer doesn't change even if the user is a single-purpose account... single purpose accounts just might be more likely to be displaying the behaviour that this question was about, but the manner in which I would deal with that behaviour wouldn't change. Sancho 06:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by AldeBaer
 * 7. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
 * A:Islam &mdash; This was one of the earlier articles that I read in full, even before registering a user name. I was impressed with both the coverage, and the seemingly perfect balance between overview and detail with pointers to full articles on each topic. I also liked the infobox to lead me around other Islam related articles. Later on, I learned that this summary style is the recommended practice for extensive articles. It certainly works.
 * Wikipedia &mdash; Just in the past week or so, I've been putting together a presentation for a small lecture series at the university that I attend. I will be presenting Wikipedia. This article presented a lot of material that I didn't know about Wikipedia. It also, along with the related article on criticism of Wikipedia, displays the quality that an article can achieve when the policies of verifiability and neutral point of view are strictly adhered to, even when being written by the subject of the article (not to promote conflict of interest editing, but rather to display the importance of these two policies). By now, I am not surprised when I find an article covering all angles of a subject, both positive and negative, but this was a recent example that sticks out in my mind.
 * Image:Giza_pyramid_complex_%28map%29.svg &mdash; I am envious of this picture. I would love to be able to produce graphic work of this quality, and am working to improve myself in this area. I read the work of Edward Tufte, a statistician dedicated to improving the visual display of information, and this image reminded me of his work. It shows the data, color is used well to separate layers (ground, pyramids, village, road), and it doesn't cheat by leaving out detail. Sancho 07:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 


 * 8. Do you believe the Wikipedia community has a set of shared ethical values?
 * A: I believe that all true members of the community do share at least one ethical value: the importance of respect. As regards any other ethical view I can think of, the shear number of editors precludes the community from sharing a single view.


 * 9. Do you believe that ethical values should be taken into consideration when crafting policy?
 * A: Only the ethical value that I mention above, the importance of respect, should be explicitly taken into account when crafting policy. Of course, it is very difficult to remove one's other ethical values completely from one's opinions while crafting policy. This is reason for discussion and consensus building. These processes will keep in check any ethical values that enter into discussions on policy and keep the policy creation focussed on the goal of building an encyclopedia.


 * 10. Do you believe it is appropriate for an administrator to impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions (e.g. deletion, blocking, page protection, etc.)?
 * A: No, I do not believe that would be appropriate. The administrator is here to do work for the community, and as such, the community tells the administrator how to do the job. There are policies in place that should guide administrator actions. The importance of respect, including respect for the consensus of the community, would direct me to follow these policies before applying my own set of ethical values.


 * The scope of what might be meant by "ethical values" is large. I think I have interpreted your question correctly... if it seems like I haven't, please let me know. Sancho 07:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from WooyiTalk to me?


 * 11. In what circumstances will you use WP:IAR to delete pages (in whatever namespace) that do not belong to, or in the gray area of, criteria of speedy deletion? WooyiTalk to me? 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A: It seems that anything that falls into a gray area or completely outside the critera of speedy deletion isn't so pressing as to require by-passing the full deletion process. Any circumstances in which I can think deletion of an article is so important that it must happen immediately is covered under CSD. The only situation that I would apply WP:IAR to deletion would be if I believe that any delay in the deletion of material due to the deletion process would harm the project or another person. This should happen very rarely, if at all, since I can't think of any situation where this would be the case, yet isn't already covered under WP:CSD. Sancho 19:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Dreamy


 * 12. If confronted with multiple users, that are not sockpuppets, that all agree on something, even though you have already attempted to explain why what you believe to be correct, is correct, how would you then handle it? Assuming that they stand united and will not just be pushovers.
 * A:

General comments

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


 * Links for Sanchom:

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

Discussion


Support
 * 1) This is a quite difficult decision for me to make, but I've decided. When I was browsing through Sanchom's edit statistics, I found a lot of good things, and one thing that I'm a bit displeased about. Sanchom uses a signature template, prohibited by the signature content guideline, which I encourage to put up for deletion. However, I would still trust Sanchom with policy as I have observed a lot of village pump (policy section) commentary. I am extremely impressed with Sanchom's participation and discussion of WP:N. Not only does he discuss this content guideline, he also has made at least 8 changes to the guideline itself. Therefore, I'd trust Sanchom with closing AFD debates, as his contributions show a profound participation in that area of Wikipedia, and the policy/guideline that it entails. Sanchom also wishes to protect pages, and I am all for it, because WP:RFPP has tendencies to be close to backlogs at times. Sanchom has filed around 8 reports there, and since most protection is request due to anon vandalism, and therefore there would not be as much activity, compared to WP:AIV. I'm satisfied that Sanchom knows the protection policy, and would be able to enforce it correctly at WP:RFPP. Sanchom has done some vandal-whacking, judging by his contributions, and he has filed over 40 reports at WP:AIV. I'd support any admin who'd just want vandal-whack, as the rollback, block, and protect tools come in very handy. Sanchom also wants to help out with CSD deletion, also a big plus. The category is a almost a constant backlog, so admins are extremely needed there. On top of all, Sanchom has helped Royal Canadian Air Cadets reach Good Article status, and San Salvador (Guipúzcoan squadron) DYK status. To conclude, I feel these numerous positives heavily outweigh the fact that Sanchom uses a signature template (or has one). I'd encourage him to dispose of the template, however. Therefore, I support Sanchom becoming an administrator. --  Evilclown93 (talk)  11:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WOW! ClapClapClapClap. What a speech, just makes me want to go through his contibs and find a good reason to oppose. -- L w a r f   Talk! 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you see a sig template? Looking at the nom, and his recent talk page archives, he doesn't seem to have one now. --Rory096 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here.  Evilclown93 (talk)  14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering there are no links to it in the whatlinkshere (besides this page), either Sanchom doesn't use it, or he substs it every time he does (ie, he has as his sig. I'm not sure why he'd do that instead of just putting his sig code in the sig box, but it's allowed. --Rory096 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted, though.  Evilclown93 (talk)  15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I will delete it. I confirmed that it was being subst'ed before I used it (seems to be a feature of the software to force template signatures to be subst'ed), but I will not use it any more. I made it originally because it was easier for me to preview the result of changes to my signature, which I don't plan on making anymore anyways. Thank you for letting me know. Sancho 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the speech isn't long enough :D  Stwalkerster  talk 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no one can beat Gurch. Nice thy though, but with your userpage, it isn't going to happen :P (Compare Gurch's page to yours) G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 00:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get the userpage part...  Evilclown93 (talk)  00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Sanchom is a highly smart when it comes to knowing wiki policy. I believe it is time to give him the mop. His edit count for me is low, 3,100, but other than that, it's a strong support! Politics rule 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How many edits would a candidate have to have before you would not consider it "low"? Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5,000... 10,000? - Zeibura (Talk) 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm being bold and striking the troll vote. Look at other votes by this user if you don't believe me.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I reviewed your contributions, talk page history, and katewannabe results and feel confident you can handle the mop wisely. May the Schwartz be with you. --Ozgod 12:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support - The user is very experienced but has a very low edit count but I will support as per Jimbo Wales..-- Cometstyles 12:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How many edits would a candidate have to have before you would not consider it "low"? Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Omg.. I saw his number of unique pages and thought it was his total edits..I take it back ..-- Cometstyles 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - After looking at your contributions and other things I am happy to support your adminship. Plenty of good contributions to articles and evidence of a friendly nature convince me you will not abuse the tools. Camaron1 | Chris 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No big deal, won't abuse tools, experienced in policy... Nothing that I can see to oppose this. Stwalkerster  talk 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Self nominations shows the user's confidence and eagerness to become an admin, so I will support. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- you answered my optional question to my satisfaction, so I now know what you will use the tools for and I am happy with that. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk  -- (dated 17:01, 21 June 2007 UTC)
 * 6) Strong support. I had only one concern which was lack of participation in XfDs (only 6 in the last month), but the answer to question 4, particularly the section on XfD consensus, was just clarity in a cup. I have full trust in this user for closing such discussions. Best of luck, - Zeibura (Talk) 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support After expanding on question one. ~   Wi ki  her mit  18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Answers to the questions are satisfying and a review of the contributions looks good to me.  Looks like it's time to bestow the mop!  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support nothing wrong here. Acalamari 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support looks promising. — An as  talk? 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Editcountitis continues to be a problem, even among the support !votes. Yes, ok, we need to see that an editor has adequate knowledge and experience of admin-related topics, but this is shown more by the nature of the contributions rather than the number. This user is OK.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Sancho has been on Wikipedia long enough to determine that he is trustworthy. As a former Royal Canadian Air Cadets, he most likely knows how to hold himself to high standards of conduct. His knows how to hold himself to high standards of conduct as an editor, and is ready for the mop. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I do not think this user is likely to abuse the tools.--†Sir James Paul† 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) (ec) G 1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 00:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - *nods in approval* Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I think he will use these tools wisely. Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Good answers to the questions. Captain   panda  01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Your comments were thoughtful and helpful in resolving the disputes at WP:N. Your other contributions look good as well, and your answers to the questions are solid.  I'm satisfied you would be an asset as an admin.-- Kubigula (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support. great candidate, answered everything properly, you'll be a fantastic admin :-) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I was a bit worried about the answer to question 1, but that was fully explained... I think this user will not abuse the tools and demostrates a good understanding of policy. Gutworth (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support- I'm very satisfied with his answers to the questions, especially his answers to question #4. E  ddie  02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Yes indeed, this editor looks ready. By the way, I think that I need to go make a new cabal, the Long Speech Cabal. Good one Evilclown. :) -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per analysis of contribs, and good answers to questions -- he even got the trick part. --Haemo 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - Gave a great response to both my question, and the other questions he was asked. The user doesn't seem like he would abuse the tools. Why not? :) NSR 77  T C  14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, pending an answer to my optional question. —AldeBaer 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking... that's the most difficult question so far. Sancho 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I likes whats I sees! Jmlk  1  7  07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per above. Peacent 13:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per all above, and per contributions. User will likely make a good admin. Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  13:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support – impressed with your answers to the questions – Se  bi  ~ 03:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support He seems to know what he is doing. I am a strong supporter! Politics rule 04:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support No evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support   Buck  ets  ofg  21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Terence 03:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support seems knowledgeable and trustworthy.--Sandahl 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support not jumping through the RFA hoops is a good thing in my book... shows probability the candidate actually just wants to help out, not to level up in the Wikipedia prestige RPG. Candidate can write articles . Seems to otherwise know what he's doing even more than the average qualified candidate. --W.marsh 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) After a quick flick through your contribs, I think you'll be fine with the tools. I've read and noted the opposes, and they aren't worrysome enough for me to do anything other than support.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I think this editor can be trusted with the extra buttons. -- DS1953 talk  17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support great editor and satisfactory answer. He is unlikely to abuse tools. WooyiTalk to me? 03:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose Sorry - I have tried hard to get past the lack of detail in your actual nomination (even thought the answer to Q 4 helps a lot) and your relatively small amount of experience - and I understand the general decree that Admin is no big deal but trust and understanding is still important and your answers do not do that for me. I will watch the continuation of the RfA for the next couple of days and if I see a reason to change my response I will.Bec-Thorn-Berry 08:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I always try to take some point for improvement out of negative feedback. Do you have any for me? Maybe you could let me know what area I should focus on in order to improve my understanding in the area that you feel my understanding or trustworthiness is lacking. Sancho 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I was looking through your contributions, especially those in the user talk namespace - a very important and frequently-visited namespace if you're an admin - and found little but vandalism warnings, which was a bit disappointing. I'm not willing to support with such little user-to-user interaction. I know this won't make a dent, but I feel it needs to be said. Cheers, Riana (talk)  15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really meant to be one of those pointy oppose votes, the ones that you notice in a sea of supports, which make your prick your ears up and go 'hang on, maybe I'm not doing that right!' I bear you no ill-will... I want to see this RfA pass. I just thought you should be told. All the best! :) Riana (talk)  07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose &mdash; I view self-nomming as prima facie evidence of power-tripping. Kurt Weber 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doing a self nom shows he wants to help the project - not evidence of power tripping. Assume good faith please.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, Sancho, but I have to fall on the oppose side of the fence. I think anyone who knows me and my own RfA nominations knows that I'm big on communication skills and I consider it a very important skill for administrators. Someone whose nomination statement consists entirely of "Me :-) A self-nomination" and who's user talk comments, as Riana noted above, consist almost entirely of template messages doesn't grab me as being a great interpersonal communicator. Also like Riana, I don't want to see this RfA oppose and if my comment was going to tip the scale, I'd change to neutral, but I feel strongly about this issue and I would encourage you to work on one-on-one non-template communication with other editors. All the best with your adminship, Sarah 11:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly take your (and Riana's) advice... Thank you. However, I do have a question (this also relates to Riana's words above). This surprised me as a point for oppose (as well as Riana's), since I thought I did have a lot of editor-to-editor communication in my history, although not in user-talk namespace. Most has been at noticeboards, the village pump, article discussion pages, and the Wikipedia_talk namespace. In my previous editor review, one comment was that I talk quite a bit with other editors:Editor_review/Sanchom. My question is, when do you feel that a discussion should be started at a User_talk page instead of at an article talk page, village pump, or the like? (I did recently find the link to Wikipedians requesting help, so that will get me out onto those pages more.) Sancho 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral- the user is a good friendly editor and they certainly won't abuse the tools, but, I have to stand neutral because there isn't a very long nor detailed description of why he has nominated himself for RFA. I will change to support if he improves it. Francisco Tevez 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. I have just found myself lately thinking "I wish I could just do that myself", when it comes to vandal blocking, closing the backlogged AfDs, and deletions that satisfy the Speedy Delete criteria specifically. I just put something in the queue, and then wait for somebody else to take care of it. I just think I can be one more person shrinking the queues rather than adding to them. Sancho 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Per question one. ~   Wi ki  her mit  16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)  (changing to support)
 * Neutral Per question 5. Awaiting answer. NSR 77  T C  19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Q.5 and Q.6, awaiting answers. --Haemo 23:01, 21 June 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.