Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slgrandson


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

Slgrandson
Final (41/19/4); ended 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

- Slgrandson or Dylan is a user that I ran across many moons ago and I have always been deeply impressed by him. He is clear headed, understands policy, sees right from wrong and would use the tools for the overal betterment of Wikipedia. He has over 6,000 edits and has been with us for over 2 years and most certainly gained the trust of the community. Out of those 6,000 edits, roughly 2,000+ have been in the mainspace while some 800 odd have been in the projectspace. Though I must admit I find it odd that he has a heavy habit of editting articles about the carebears, but that is a minor oversight. Honestly, I think Slgrandson is the ideal admin candidate and will be nothing but a progressive step forward. Yank sox 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: By the powers that beseech God's Kingdom, Waterbury, the Bronx and my birthplace, Dominica—I truly, madly, deeply accept! --Sl g randson (page - messages - contribs) 20:16, 26 April 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, if any, do you intend to take part in?
 * A: As an admin, I will be of more assistance in the new page and RC patrols, and will help out in WP:Prod. Whenever and wherever possible, I will deal with the blocking of users and deletion of pages. And, as a member of WP:DS, I will assist in the discussion and closure of XFDs, all of whose sections I have visited, as well as WP:AIV, WP:RFP and WP:CSD's backlog.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Anything with Jerry Beck's Animated Movie Guide as a citation is sure to put a smile on my face these days. Early in my career, I created and edited pages about three favourite books of mine: Minty Alley, The Richleighs of Tantamount and The Family from One End Street. In recent times, I have been a main contributor to three GAs: The Care Bears Movie; the studio who created it, Nelvana; and another children's film, Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw. My one-time edit to a "Did you know?" selection, the page about the 1975 animated feature Tubby the Tuba, has put me one step closer to the Triple Crown. One of the eight featured potentials on my to-do list is sure to cut the mustard any time in the coming months.


 * 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: Apart from confilcts with // in June, and in November—through both of which my page was a target—I've not seen much worry over my WP life. I now feel that I am risking another such scenario whenever I warn and welcome users and IPs of all trades, a job I am always ready to do.


 * A question from bainer (talk)
 * 4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
 * A: As much as I follow site policies and guidelines, I truly find a question like this hard to answer. However, I have seen prolific users like and  contribute without providing edit summaries, and even I participated in a recent RFA where the candidate,, didn't answer any of his questions until the last minute! (The same thing is starting to happen for  in his debate, yet support for him has been rather surprising.) In short, whether to ignore rules depends on the individual Wikipedian; it is a matter of choice.


 * A question from DESiegel talk
 * 5. What is your opinion of Process is Important? How does process fit into your philosophy of how Wikipedia should be run? How strict would you be in adhering to process in using admin tools, if you becom an admin?
 * A: Up to this moment, I haven't come across this essay. But, for what it's worth, I think it fits some WP activity very well, especially WP:AID. I agree with what is expressed therein, that Wikipedia will never advance any further in quality, productivity, reliability or co-operation, and would have never got there, were it not for Jimbo, L. Sanger, and hundreds of other serious users like me. Even the only (few) edit(s) of a one-time account is/are better than if he or she didn't make any at all. Sometimes, as a result, readers will learn something they didn't know about an article subject prior to those edits.


 * Should I become an admin, I will use the process ideals in the essay to the advantage of helping out in the deletion closures/procedured at AFD/Prod/CSD/DS, and determining what pages should go and who should be blocked. I am a fair, honest man, and will always deal with situations the moment I am informed of them.


 * (That took me quite a while to answer this, but I hope it's well worth it!)
 * Thanks, but that doesn't quite address the point I had in mind. Let me clarify. There are some people who think that the only important thing is whether the "right" result is achieved in any particular case, and any given process should be used if and only if it makes getting to that right result easier (and thus helping to build the encyclopedia), and it should be ignored whenever it seems to get in the way. There are others who think that having a known and consistent process in itself helps, by making things more predictable and transparent for users, and thus it is worth making a large effort to stick with (or publicly change) existing process rather than ignore or avoid it, even when in a particular case it makes things a bit harder -- requires some hoops to jump through. How do you feel on this? For example, the speedy delete criteria are intentionally rather narrow. Many admins feel that nothing should be speedy-deleted unless it clearly fits one of the defined criteria. A good many others feel that any page that is perceived as unhelpful, as not being of value to the project, can and should be speedy-deleted whether it fits one of the defined criteria or not. Other admins fall in the middle on this issue. What is your view? DES (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Your first suggestion is insightful; when it takes a group of people to improve an article, then it can be considered many times more helpful than a handful of users (or even one) to do the same task. As for CSD, I somehow agree with you: the categories, with which articles are classified as such, tend to be a little limited in scope. It can be helped, however, when the nominator has placed his/her own reason using db. Sometimes, it can be difficult to tell whether certain new pages are worthy of CSD status, hence the reason WP:Prod was implemented.


 * Optional question from Doc Glasgow
 * 6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this? --Docg 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: In normal circumstances, I would revert the changes (sometimes cleaning it up myself where possible) and warn the user with or  . If it persists, I will take that certain user to AIV, and leave a note about this on his/her talk page. Should such edits be substantial, but otherwise questionable, editors have to take note on the main subject's talk page, and (in extreme cases) at WPP:BIO.


 * Optional question from Simply south
 * 7. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Simply south 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: As of yet, I am still trying to get the page on Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation to GA/FA status--ever since February 2006's FAC. The plot summary is still in a mess, and it's been taking me forever to get the production details (almost none of which have surfaced online).


 * Not-very-optional question from Kafziel
 * 8. In your initial response to Question 1, you stated that blocking other users and protecting pages was something you've "looked forward to" since you started at Wikipedia. You received some opposition because of that, and you changed your answer (several days later), here. Seems to me you're using some creative revisionism, hoping that future participants here might not see your original answer. Have your views on blocking and page protection suddenly changed this afternoon, or did you just realize your RfA would fail if you didn't tell us what we wanted to hear? Kafziel Talk 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: My views on blocking/deleting/protecting haven't quite changed just yet, although I feel this job is well-tailored for my tastes. I know, some of you didn't like the attitude I displayed in #1, and only now do I realise how harsh it was, so I apologise if that's the case. Still, I promise to use the tools well if I succeed.

General comments

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


 * Sorry about the rushed opportunity to participate—the original library computer on which I typed this restarted three times! --Sl g randson (page - messages - contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Discussion
Looking through your talk page, I really don't see much at all. Do other users just not contact you for some reason? By comparison, I have 17 talk page archives with an average size of absolutely huge. I don't know if I'm able to judge how well you work with other users, as it doesn't seem to happen too often? -- Cyde Weys 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh ... remember this is a discussion, not a vote. Anyone want to talk about this?  You know, to help us make up our collective minds as to whether Slgrandson is a worthy admin candidate?  -- Cyde Weys  19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments are in the neutral section below. I think your point is lost when you compare the quantity of contributions to talk pages. Surely it is the quality of talk at issue here. My problem is not the absense of talk, so much as the reliance on templates to convey his messages. Then Dylan states in Q1 that he is looking forward to blocking and deleteing. This in combination with no meaningful discussion on user talk pages is why I cannot support this candidate. Basically, I do not trust this user to block and delete unless necessary. Communication is key to using those tools effectively. David D. (Talk) 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer to question 4 is perplexing. I don't think the examples gave are necessarily in the spirit of what ignore all rules is talking about. Is ignoring a rule to make the encyclopedia better good or bad? I hate to simplify the question to that extent, but I would appreciate an answer that is more clear. (I was going to put this under neutral but I am entirely confused by the answer) hombre de haha 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification (diff). I'm getting the feeling I know the answer now, but many things are a matter of choice.  It is a matter of choice to disrupt Wikipedia and vandalize Wikipedia, that doesn't make it right.  I was wondering what your choice was.  hombre de haha 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Note User:Kafziel has initiated a question on this above, however I would like to note here that the User has adjusted his response to Q1 after receiving opposes for it hombre de haha 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Too late, the cat was already out of the bag. You don't just modify comments without some kind of explanation, this shows poor judgement. Or has this been discussed somewhere that I've missed? David D. (Talk) 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shortly after User:Slgrandson adjusted Q1 and answered the other questions, User:Kafziel (Q8) added his question regarding it.  Slgrandson has not clarified why he did it, but at the very least it does show poor judgement.  Moreover, User:Samsara discovered Slgrandson's previous opposition to IAR, which perhaps provides another clarification of Q4.  hombre de haha 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as images are concerned, let me point out that I uploaded them for the CBMI(I) page(s) in the early part of my career, before I finally got to know how serious Wikipedia's rules of fair use were: in articles, I found out later on, it is limited to 3-5 important images per page (which I have since followed). Working on CBMII as of late, many of them had to be cut out, hence the bot notices littering my talk section midway. --Sl g randson (page - messages - contribs) 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support I see no problems with this user. Captain   panda  20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've also seen the user around, and he seems quite level-headed; ready for the mop. Xoloz 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - He has contributions in nearly all categories and he is well experienced and seems to know what he is doing.sure.:)..-- Cometstyles 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Aren't the Carebears all about restoring love, harmony, and caring to the world? That's an ideal for an sysop. --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Troppus I've also been deeply impressed. Good luck!  Majorly   (hot!)  21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I see no problems with this user. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, I've seen Dylan around quite a lot. The quality of his work seems top notch, and his interactions with others are most pleasant and level-headed. Gladly cleared for the mop!  P h a e d r i e l  - 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support A diverse and effective contributor. No problem. YechielMan 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support John254 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Great work on Wikipedia, Slgrandson. I was thinking of nominating you, in fact. Nishkid64 (talk)  01:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. You had a pretty interesting approach to the standard IAR question. Nice contribs.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Another familiar name, for good reasons. -- Hús ö  nd 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) -- Y not? 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I consider myself to be most well-versed in wiki-events, so I am ashamed to say: "I thought he already was an admin." Mandatory support. RyanGerbil10 (Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Two reasons: 1) I've seen this user around and I get the impression that he knows what he's doing and won't abuse the tools and 2) Kelly Martin opposed because of a userbox and images. Sean William  02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to the candidate to support because another person opposed. Yank sox  02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the only reason why I supported. He's a good candidate. (I feel that the oppose !vote is a bit ridiculous, though...) Sean William  02:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kelly is entitled to Kelly's opinion. One opine does not make a consensus. Yank sox  02:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with her. We'll agree to disagree. Rest assured that I would have supported regardless of Kelly Martin's stance. Sean William  02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Very impressive contribution record --Shirahadasha 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. As all the orphaned images mentioned in the notices on his talk page were uploaded quite early in his career here, I believe Slgrandson has learned from his early days. I imagine most editors here did things when they first started which they would never do now. Based on his contributions, I believe Slgrandson can be trusted with the tools, and see no indication the tools would be misused. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support No blocks. No objectionable answers to questions. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support All my encounters (although not always direct interactions) have been favourable. – B.hotep u/t• 08:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not likely to abuse the tools, impressive work. — An as  talk? 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Terence 10:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support he is going to become a good administrator. __ ABF __ 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support-- will make an excellent admin. alphachimp  16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support to cancel out Kelly Martin's vote, as per my comments on other RfAs . Wal  ton  Need some help? 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As per concerns raised on my talk page, I've decided to explain this support vote further. I wasn't intending to suggest any bad intentions on the part of Ms. Martin. But I believe this candidate is adequately qualified and has a sufficient editcount, and (with respect) I don't see that userboxes alone are a good reason to oppose. The nonfree content thing is a potential problem with this candidate, but I don't consider it a good enough reason to change my vote overall. Wal  ton  Need some help? 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support seems qualified.-- danntm T C 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Already responded in this section. Nacon kantari  23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that.-- danntm T C 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - is a little rough around the edges, but will refine self over time. A diamond in the rough.  :)  I like your enthusiasm and dedication.  The Transhumanist 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support &mdash; good answers to questions, good record, no reason to believe user can't be trusted; oppose reasons fail to convince me. *** Crotalus ***  21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - none of the concerns bother me, if Cyde looks carefully at his talk page history, he deletes old messages. Kelly is worried about user boxes again, however I'm not going to understand her fascination. Also, his ignore all the rules answer was that he would generally follow policy, but still apply common sense - which is a good answer. Finally, that leaves the only meaningful concern - image policy. The reality is the image policy isn't very difficult to grasp. If he believed that he understood it perfectly, when he clearly didn't, then I would be concerned. However that isn't the case. Addhoc 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) support semper fictilis  23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A.Z. 06:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Well dedicated and reasonably experienced, use of user boxes, talk page and images do not make me think he would abuse the admin tools. Camaron1 | Chris 11:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Phaedriel. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I see nothing in his contributions, user page or answers to the questions here that makes me believe he will fail to use the tools properly. -- DS1953 talk 05:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I can be comfortable with the tools in his hand. I am glad some people want to admins, otherwise we would have none.  Jody B   02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) --dario vet  (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Informative userboxes help. Ab  e  g92   We are all Hokies!  10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support - good editor, reasonable, polite, and level-headed person. I have seen him around almost from the time he started here, and I have seen nothing but good from him.  Even as a newbie he was always one to ask questions first.  Guettarda 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - a new administrator need not specialize in every single facet of Wikipedia. His apparent limited understanding of image policy is not of concern, these things can be learned. If a user lacks in a certain area like that, as long as it is not something they intend to focus on, that's fine with me. Keep up the good work! Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go  18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support - It is good to see a good wikipedian-netzen go up for Adminship. I've watched Slgrandson contribute over that past couple of years and I'm confident they will be able to continue being a positive influence on Wikipedia.  I fully support their nomination. CaribDigita 00:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Perhaps there are significant concerns hiding behind the quibbles about his answers to the questions but I don't see any. The candidate has ample experience and his edit history offers no basis for concern. Hopefully in his next RFA the candidate just lies to avoid this trouble. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Has the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, plus his talk page is full of a whole bunch of orphaned nonfree content notices. Editors who upload lots of nonfree content, that subsequently ends up being deleted, are editors I don't want becoming admins.  An oppose is mandatory in these circumstances. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under similar circumstances, I don't blame someone for wanting to move progressively upwards. However, I don't think he will use the fairuse/nonfree to an aspect that he is uncertain to, as he will just contribute in areas we is sure about. Yank sox  01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Kelly! My backlog tracker shows, among many other needs, 68,954 articles needing sources. The backlog is growing. With this in mind, how much extra work due to being shorthanded is the userbox thing worth? Are the benefits to the project from being strict about userboxes worth getting even further behind on the backlog? Best, --Shirahadasha 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need be a sysop for sourcing. John Reaves (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you're unaware, I don't think Kelly's supported an RFA, ever. I don't think Kelly's supported the vast majority of requests for adminships. Or at least not recently enough for most people to be aware of such an event. Kelly will either oppose an RFA based on minutiae or, at absolute best, with rare exception, toss in a Neutral comment about not being supported by a Wikiproject. It's Kelly's way of calling the current canvassing policy... inadequate. It's almost as regular as the tides, really. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, User:Lankybugger, but history records that I supported Moralis' candidacy, about two weeks ago. Please refrain from using false information in an attempt to defame the character of other editors; such acts are potentially illegal and certainly uncivil.  You would be well-advised to ensure that the facts fit your rhetoric before spouting it forth next time.  Kelly Martin (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page, Kelly. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Making factually incorrect statements in the course of an RFA discussion is illegal? I'll have to make sure that I don't make statements about any editor that could be considered incorrect, defamatory, libelous, or otherwise derogatory.  Come to think of it, I'll have to be careful about that in the encyclopedia articles as well.  Why, just this afternoon, I made this edit in which I denied that Martin Lopez, formerly of Opeth, is the greatest drummer ever.  I'm also expecting the lawsuit from the heirs of William W. Eastman and John L. Merriam for making this edit in which I asserted that the tunnel they dug under Nicollet Island wasn't such a good idea.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, mostly due to a confused sounding answer to (4). I am left thinking that the Slgrandson has no idea what WP:IAR is about or what its purpose is... The mountain of orphaned non-free images is also troubling, perhaps more so from someone who professes to believe the strict rules adherence is important. Further, he has a fair number of Wikipedia: space edits ... but the overwhelming majority of them appear to be simple votes (with little / no discussion) or basic maintenance stuff.. Pretty much no wikipedia_talk edits.. as a result I'm unable to measure his understanding of Wikipedia overall. In the future perhaps? Today I just don't see enough good information to offset the worrysome stuff.--Gmaxwell 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per unclear answer to Q4. Nacon kantari  15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I actually like his answer to Q4 and the go get 'em attitude in Q1 but I doubt this user's understanding of image policy. If he could convince me otherwise I wouldn't have a problem supporting him. NeoFreak 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, speaking from personal experience. The tools do not indicate that you need to work on all fields of adminship just the ones that you are certain about. He can continue to grow in terms of that and become a better user. Yanksox 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But there's no such thing as limited adminship. If he gets the bit, he gets all of the mops, including the dealing-with-images mops.  And if he's unclear about Wikipedia's mission to create a free content freely redistributable encyclopedia, and overuses non-free images, this will affect how he will deal with non-free images upon being handed the mop.  It is a concern.  -- Cyde Weys  19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose From Q1: Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages. At least it seems to be an honest answer.  I find it troubling.  Hopefully, if this RFA passes, I am just reading too much into it.  The clarification of Q4 was not really a clarification at all; the User said it "depends on the individual Wikipedian" and "is a matter of choice."  Forced to read between the lines, I gather that the user is not crazy about ignore all rules but really doesn't want to make it an issue in this RFA.  I thought about asking the user clarify this again, but I already asked once and Q1 is unsettling enough.  No further clarification is needed for me.  Q5 feels like a bit of a dance as well, or the user didn't understand the question.  I do feel bad about this oppose because the user's main space edits seem very good.  Good luck to you.  hombre de haha 10:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose&mdash;user opposed me unfairly in my own RfA and ignored me when I tried to talk to him about it, which is the kind of thing that really rubs me the wrong way. Everyking 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's like tagging your 'oppose' with "please ignore this oppose, it's entirely personal" - David Gerard 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't ignore my oppose. Everyking 09:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Although the candidate's mainspace contributions are good, I don't think he is quite ready. I oppose per the answers to Q1, Q4, and Q5.
 * Q1: The statement that "Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages" worries me. Now, this is not indication that the candidate will delete the main page and block Jimbo, but it does seem like a sign of slight trigger-happyness and overexcitement for a position that involves a lot of tedious, repetitive tasks.
 * Q4: IAR should be invoked only for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I don't see that contributing "without providing edit summaries" or not answering RfA questions in any way benefit the encyclopedia (or even that they fall under IAR). Overall the answer is rather vague and does not suggest (to me) a sufficient grasp of the policy.
 * Q5: The following statement, in relation to CSD, bothers me: "the categories, with which articles are classified as such, tend to be a little limited in scope. It can be helped, however, when the nominator has placed his/her own reason using db." I am one of the people who believes that "nothing should be speedy-deleted unless it clearly fits one of the defined criteria" and the candidate's statement seems to suggest that he views speedy-deletion of articles that do not meet the CSD as valid as long as a reason is provided. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Black Falcon et al. "Looking forward to blocking users and deleting pages" is not the attitude I'm looking for, sorry. —AldeBaer 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Correcting to strong. The answer to Q4 is very weak. Candidate seems not at all to know what IAR is. And even if, it's precisely not a matter of "individual choice", but of common sense and the better of Wikipedia. If Slgrandson really believes that not answering optional questions in RfAs is "ignoring all rules", he may have wanted to apply it in this case. —AldeBaer 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  Weak oppose. While I believe Slgrandson could be a valuable admin, I'm too much worried about his answer to Q1. People who look forward to blocking users and deleting articles, are not likely to show sufficient contemplation about when to do so. Sorry. Er rab ee 14:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed from weak oppose to oppose because of the answer to Q6. Many unsourced material that is added happens to be true; many editors are simply unaware of the necessity to source their edits. This is best explained to them in a civil manner, but certainly not by warning them with a template. And though the unsourced contentious material should be removed, this discussion could result in an addition of the material, but now properly sourced. Er rab ee 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not, per answer to Question 1. Kafziel Talk 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for his opposition to IAR. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Based on his answers to both the IAR and PII questions, and his stated desire to 'block users and protect pages', combined with his apparent inexperience/lack of judgment when it comes to non-free images, lead me to believe that this user cannot be trusted with the tools at this time. Sorry. -- nae'blis 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Changed to oppose from neutral due to this edit to rewrite answer to Q1 without addressing the issues raised from multiple comments on this RfA. David D. (Talk) 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The asnwers to both Q4 & Q5 were unclear and seemed to miss the point of the questions, and of the underlying policy issues. The changes to the answers to Q1 & Q4 (both linked above) rather than striking out and re-wording trouble me. The answer to Q5 seems to imply that Slgrandson supports speedy deletion outside of the rather restricted limits of the approved WP:CSD, and that is a red flag for me. In short, i don't trust this user with the delete button at this time. DES (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I find this candidate's honesty refreshing (Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages). Voicing loud and strong what others only whisper, his statement neatly encapsulates a key motivation for the endless stream of hopefuls whose names grace this page day after day. Of course, the correct answer is: assisting users and improving pages. --JJay 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Oppose - Per his original answer to question 1 (incitefully established by the detail at optional question 8) I also am very troubled by the non-striking out at Q1 and also at Q4 which hides the reality of the prompting those answers gave him to adjust his appearance. All in all not ready at all yet.-- VS  talk 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per troubling responses to questions, as noted by all above, and revision rather than strikethrough of answers. Pastor David † (Review) 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Not convinced he's got the importance of BLP and per other concerns.--Docg 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) oppose. Only 2/6 ratio for real article edits means seriously worries me. As well as some other expressed positions. Mukadderat 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Whilst they look like they have a healthy amount of experience in both article and Wikipedia type contributions amongst other things (so i'm leaning to support), it seems from Q1 that they are not really interested in many other things as much. As stated numerous times, it is not all just about vandalism and deletions. Simply south 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... I can't think of much else I do :)  Majorly   (hot!)  21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a former admin, for the most part it is all about vandalism and deletions everything else is not fun and glory. Yank sox  01:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Per Majorly; I would probably support in the future, but for now, more rounded contributions are needed. Jmlk17 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Majorly supported, actually. Do you mean per Simply south? Picaroon 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so keen on this comment from Q1: "Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting." This makes you sound a little trigger happy. And given your non existent talk record with users why should we trust you to try preventive measure other than blocks? Likewise are you going to get trigger happy in deleting embryonic articles.  it is hard to tell from your answers and contributions the type of targets you are after here. Sorry but i cannot support you for adminship at this time.  David D. (Talk) 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) change to oppose until answers question from Kafziel.
 * 1) Neutral per Q1 and Q4. Q4 seems slightly confused and per David D. on Q1. Answer concerns me slightly but I do not think that this user would abuse the tools.  Orfen  User Talk | Contribs 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I'm rather worried by "Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users" answer to Q.1. I also agree that Q.4 is pretty weak. WjBscribe 23:51, 27 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.