Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snowspinner 2

User:Snowspinner (62/9/3) Ends 17:06, 31 July 2004
A good, good, good editor. Had the unfortunate experience of coming through RfA way too early. But he's a good deal more established now. He's eager and energetic and has already delved into chores-type activities. I can't think of a single non-admin Wikipedian right now that would be better suited for adminship. 2629 edits, been registered for 3 months, 6 days. - blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)
 * I accept. Snowspinner 17:18, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Cribcage 17:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought he already was an admin! Full support, of course. Neutrality 17:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I do believe Snowspinner is a he. Either way, I support. Mike H 17:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) It's still very early for my tastes (just above my personal minimum) but my interactions with Snowspinner convince me he'll make a fine admin. &rarr;Raul654 17:24, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Cyrius|&#9998; 17:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I said I expected to support after he'd been here 3 months, and ... -- Cecropia | Talk 18:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Gerard 19:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) Hell yeah.
 * 9) Support strongly. Arminius 20:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) -"- --Romanm 20:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) V V 22:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Dpbsmith 23:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Most definitely. RickK 23:23, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Starx 23:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Couldn't agree more. Ambivalenthysteria 00:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) theresa knott 00:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Dori | Talk 01:22, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) James F. (talk) 01:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) About time. &#8212;No-One Jones 01:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Hephaestos|&#167; 01:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Yes. An exceedingly worthy Wikipedian. - Mark 01:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) I supported last time, so I guess I had a good reason for doing so :). anthony (see warning) 02:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) This guy's okay in my book. - Nat Krause 06:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Support 172 07:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  09:30, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Spectatrix 18:41, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
 * 28) Of course he should be an administrator. He is so nice... Lst27 20:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) *Sarcasm? Acegikmo1 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course this is not sarcasm. Snowspinner is a really nice guy... He supported my nomination in June, and when my nomination failed, he posted comments on and asked what I can do to get their support the next time... That is so nice... I am also impressed by his edits... How can anyone not support Snowspinner? --Lst27 02:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Acegikmo1 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) older &ne; wiser 21:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) --GeneralPatton 21:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Rhymeless 22:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Definitely.  SWAdair | Talk  06:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Warofdreams 12:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) - JCarriker 13:07, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Darn. I wanted to be one of your top 3 supporters. Missed first post, I guess. - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 13:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Michael Snow (no relation) 18:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, just because I don't want to be in the same group as Avala; fractured logic like that could be contagious.  j/k, snowspinner's great. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) What the...you're not an admin yet? Unbelievable! An excellent Wikipedian who carries himself well and makes great edits. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Ilyanep (Talk) 23:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC). Hate to ruin the nice even 40 :D
 * 14) Nunh-huh 23:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Love your work. &mdash;Stormie 01:14, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I'm sorry I overlooked your nomination earlier, Snowspinner.  You have my unqualified support. David Cannon 10:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Quadell (talk) 18:39, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) MykReeve 19:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Cimon 22:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) snoyes 23:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. john k 02:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) ALargeElk | Talk 12:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) David.Monniaux 12:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) JFW | T@lk  12:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Avala's rioting is senseless.
 * 4) Kim Bruning 16:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) You can tell a lot about a person from how they deal with their own mistakes.
 * 5) Dieter Simon 00:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) I will give him the benefit of the doubt and vote for Snowspinner. Yes, lack of fluency in a language in itself is not a valid reason, as in Avala's case. After all the Wikipedians can copy-edit an article. Snowspinner has patience in dealing with difficult cirumstances and will gain more experience.
 * 6) Support, while I agree w much of the criticism, and feel SS is an opinionated, strong willed individual, who is capable of being wrong or exaggerated on occasion (who isn't), his obvious integrity and deep focus on neutrality and fairness more than make up for any mistakes he has made (which don't ad up to much, BTW). IMO the ability to admit when we are wrong, and the sincere desire to be right are far more important than a specific error or two. Sam [Spade] 03:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Ilyanep (Talk) 05:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) mav 06:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Elf-friend 14:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support AndyL 14:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, of course. -Seth Mahoney 23:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. User is obviously qualified if Lir and Plato are opposing. --H. C HENEY 02:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Without question. -- Hadal 04:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) [[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to yes but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. [[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *This very well may be the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest vote I've ever seen on RfA. Vote on the candidate's merit, not that of the people supporting him... blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **I don`t want to be in the same group with such people as GP. And please don`t call my votes - dumb. We have no personal attacks policy in here.Avala 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Sorry, but that vote is dumb. If you don't want to be in the same group, then just don't vote at all!  Voting against someone on account of something they have absolutely no control over and that relates in no way to their potential to be a good admin... makes you look like an 8-year-old.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  12:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ****Just utterly baffled here. a) Who is GP? b) What actions, exactly, would you have wished and expected Snowspinner to take? Not taking sides, just puzzled. Dpbsmith 13:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) *****To answer your first question, Dpbsmith, I think "GP" means GeneralPatton. -- Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  13:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *****On b) It looks like you are asking the question to blankfaze but presumably you mean avala. Pcb21| Pete 10:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ******This thing with Avala has been going on for a while, for more see Requests_for_comment/Avala. -- GeneralPatton 02:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) *I'll second the opinion that your vote is dumb. (A personal attack would be calling you dumb.) It's unfortunate you can't muster the maturity to separate one user's behavior from another's reputation -- but it's not surprising, reviewing your history. Glass houses, pal. Cribcage 18:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) *Well, I, for one, am glad. I think George Washington should be the only American to have the honor of being elected unanimously.  Waitamminit, is Snowspinner even American at all?  Rats, I should have asked him that before I voted! - Nat Krause 10:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Oh, yeah, you are. The not funny thing kinda got to me for a minute, there. Mike H 15:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) *I have decided to vote to support the nomination solely because God has not voted in opposition. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I oppose solely because people are jumping on Avala for opposing. Who cares? If he feels like opposing, then allow him that privilege. Frankly, I don't care what his reasons are. And anyway, Snowspinner has 40 votes in favor... I do expect people to jump on me for this one as well. And Cribcage -- have you even read the personal attack page? If I were to say, "articles written by Cribcage are dumb", that's obviously a personal attack... or, "every article written by ugen64 is racist"... ugen64 21:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *If it makes you feel better, I think your vote is just as dumb. Cribcage 02:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) **No, dumber. At least Avala's was (peripherally) related to the current nomination. My discretion as a beaurocrat is to totally ignore both Avala's and this objection, and I recommend any other beaurocrat do the same. If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make frivilous objections like this a serious policy matter. &rarr;Raul654 18:47, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ***Agreed...if it weren't like 55 votes to 3, I'd be with you Raul (as a sysop, a beuraucrat and most importantly a member of the WP community). Ilyanep (Talk) 05:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) **Well, honestly. This is a vote. You can't discount my vote just because you disagree with my reasoning, unless you want to completely do away with the democratic nature of choosing administrators. Although I've called many people's votes "dumb" (including, to name one example, Kingturtle, whose standards I thought were much too high), I've never asked people to ignore a cast vote. Of course, I am with Raul -- "If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make [frivolous] objections like this a serious policy matter" -- I would strongly object if my vote were discounted simply because the rationale is considered "frivolous". ugen64 22:54, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) ***I'm not ignoring your objection because I disagree with your reasoning - I'm ignoring it because it's completely, totally, 100% irrelavant to the nomination. And, for the record, the poll which defined how a bureacrat does his job (which I wrote, for the record) ended up saying exactly that - a beaurocrat may use his discretion in weighing votes and give them unequal consideration. &rarr;Raul654 23:08, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. [personal attack removed by Ambivalenthysteria]. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * (Personal attack was "Snowspinner is a jerk." I feel that especially on voting records like this, confidence in the system requires transparency, and transparency requires not altering someone else's words. I also note that Remove personal attacks was never passed, and so is not policy. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))
 * 1) *I think Lir should have been banned a long, long time ago -- but for the record, I don't like the idea of censoring others' comments, particularly on a ballot. Cribcage 02:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) **I don't think Ambi was out of line. It was an unsubtle and unequivocal personal attack, and was well justified under Remove personal attacks. I'd have done it if it were any RFA other than my own. Snowspinner 13:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * But Remove personal attacks was never passed; it's partly Snowspinner's reliance on non-policy policy that led to my vote. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable point. Cribcage 19:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) *** I prefer to leave a link to the diff showing personal attack removal. But that's me. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 17:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) ****Here is the link: . I looked at it and thought "is that all?" but it is a direct personal attack and the removal is appropriate. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that Ambivalenthysteria should remove, or all personal attacks or none. [[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. sorry snowy maybe next time!--Plato 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctantly oppose. After reading User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence, in which Snowspinner includes as "evidence" against Avala that Avala opposed Snowspinner's previous nomination here, and that Avala nominated a candidate Snowspinner finds unworthy, I'm worried that Snowspinner doesn't clearly enough distinguish between his personal opinions and Wikipedia policy, and is too likely to see mere differences of opinion as actionable "rule breaking". I say this as someone who also finds Avala difficult, and as someone who had planned to vote for Snowspinner both here and for ArbCom. -- orthogonal 22:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * My objection was not that Avala nominated a candidate that I find unworthy - it's that he does not seem to consider "engages in edit wars and deletes other people's polls" to be a reasonable grounds for opposition, while finding "I don't want to be on the same list as person X" to be reasonable, which is part of the larger problem of not respecting or engaging with the community of Wikipedia and its consensus and conventions. Since that's unclear, I'll edit the evidence page to make that clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Snowspinner 23:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, based on the tendency for confrontation and rash judgement evident on his edits to this page. Zocky 23:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * In the name of openess, I think, though I'm not sure, that what zocky is objecting to is that I removed a pair of nominations under the policy that obviously unsupported nominations may be removed. I did so because they were becoming exceedingly vicious and hateful, and, in the case of one of them, because it appeared to be posted by a sockpuppet and seemed designed to foster exactly the kind of flame war that it did foster. Were I an administrator, I would have done exactly this, and probably warned some people for personal attacks as well. I say this by way of saying that, yes, I am willing to be decisive in my actions. If something is causing a problem, I will attempt to fix it. I will note in my defense, however, that I did not remove the nominations once they were reinstated. I will be decisive - I will not be stubborn and insistent. Unless there's something else entirely that you're referring to here, in which case I confess curiosity as to what it is. Snowspinner 23:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * That is a part of it. Removing a nomination in less than 24 hours on an international website means that people from some parts of the world don't even get to see it. I call that rash judgement, yes. The other is including "Avala's limited fluency in English" as a reason to oppose his RFA. That's either a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia (which I choose to believe) or a sneaky perpetuation of personal antipathy. I found both very undesirable in someone who is trusted with the Delete button.Zocky 23:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Limited fluency in English is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. This is the English Wikipedia.  Admins especially should be fluent in the language as they must communicate frequently with other users.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  23:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think the amount of time matters as much as you do... there's just no way that Avala's nomination is going to pass, and I think that was clear when I removed it. A nomination with 12 votes in opposition, which was what I think it had at the time, needs 40 supporters to pass. Only one RfA has ever passed 39 votes. It was not concievable that it was going to pass, no matter how many people had time to vote on it. Clearly there was disagreement with this. I stand by my decision, but I'm not rushing to take it down again, as I said. As for the other... I personally attribute a lot of Avala's seeming hostility to difficulty expressing himself in English. I find that a more sympathetic opinion than that he's a hothead. I think we're reacting to the same set of behaviors here, at least, though attributing different causes to it. Looking at my wording, though, i can see how it could be misinterpreted - I'll clarify. But both of those are neither here nor there, and I don't want this to turn into a lengthy debate on the matter. Feel free to bring it up with me on my talk page or on IRC if you want (And please do - I'm happy to explain myself). I just wanted to note that my approach towards this page regarding Avala's nomination and its removal would in fact be consistent with my approach towards conflict as an administrator, so that, should anyone else find it extremely objectionable, they would be aware and would vote accordingly. :) Snowspinner 23:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm entitled to the last word on my vote. Removing anything of consequence in less than 24 hours keeps even regular editors, who take time to follow the running of Wikipedia, out of the loop and denies the user's right to reply to objections.
 * The other thing is, Avala's English is nowhere near as bad as you claim. I read all his comments on this page carefully. He has problems with articles and tenses, but so do most Slavic speakers. All his text is in fact perfectly understandable, if one reads it carefully. Zocky 01:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) It is a reluctant opposition and does not reflect any personal feelings I might have toward Snowspinner's past or continuing contributions to the site and project.  However, I reviewed the evidence against Avala, and I felt that there were a number of occasions when an appeal to a broader community might have easily forestalled the animosity.  Avala's English is not fluent, and he is a citizen of the former Yugoslavia.  Consequently, some of his arguments were hampered by the language barrier, but, additionally, many of Snowspinner's misunderstandings were caused by not seeking out other, more fluent, English speakers from the area to help negotiate opinions.  After a certain point, it seems like the fight was about the fighting, and not about any particular issue, article, or decision.  That it reached such a point without outreach, without seeking the aid of neutral parties, does reflect somewhat poorly on Snowspinner's reactions to a belligerant fellow editor.  Finally and ultimately, though, I feel that Snowspinner's time on Wikipedia is simply too brief.  I say this not because I believe there is a magic number of days or edits, but because the motivation to move to administrator quickly worries me.  If one's desire is based upon getting one's will, then it is bad.  If one's desire is based upon changing the course of the project, that, too, is bad.  If one's desire is to particpate in a social world of admins, then, I feel, the motivation is suspect.  Only if the desire is based upon duty and a belief that the project is far more important than any of the project's participants is it appropriate.  I do not in any way whatever mean to imply that I believe that Snowspinner's motives are bad.  In fact, I think Snowspinner is a reasonable, intelligent, and dilligent contributor to the project who has shown himself of the highest commitment.  Instead, I oppose because I feel that it takes a great deal of time as a regular user to show a person's continued perseverance and to establish how such a person will react to others in opposition.  I do not think there is enough of a track record.  Hoping by all means that I offer no offense and provoke only thought, Geogre 17:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Gentgeen 23:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't think Snowspinner has enough editing experience. Yes, he has over 2,600 edits, but looking at his last 100 contributions there are only about seven edits to articles. He may only have a few hundred article edits altogether. Paradoxically, this appears to be the very reason he has received so much support as opposed to the other nominees on this page - at least I can find no other explanation (if I'm wrong, maybe some who supported Snowspinner but not the others can explain their voting) other than that he is simply better known, and this is because the average "Wikipedia:" page is more widely read than the average article (and article edits are not signed). I find it troubling, however, that this way we tend to create a class of "professional sysops" who are merely supervising the actual editors who work on the articles. And I note that Snowspinner is already running for the Arbitration Committee, which I don't see as a good sign. Everyone here should be an editor in the first place, and the administrative tasks should be shared among editors, not entrusted to a separate class who does little else but administrating. Gzornenplatz 13:54, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you want to see specific article work I've done, Video game studies, Chicago School (literary theory), Janet Murray, Michel Foucault, X-Men ReLoad, Betty Brant, Rallos Zek, 2004 Tour de France and the stage recaps of 2003 Tour de France are all articles I've done work on. I don't pretend that all of these are great articles - they merely demonstrate article editing. Note also that, although many of my edits are in the Wikipedia namespace, a large number are on talk pages - often talk pages of articles. That is to say, not all contributions to articles happen on article pages - I've helped resolve a number of disputes and worked towards consensus on a number of articles, often without touching the article page itself much at all. Snowspinner 16:35, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) **Note also that I have withdrawn my entry to the arbcom race - my reasons are on the candidate statement page. Snowspinner 17:26, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *I'm supporting Snowspinner's nomination -- but for the record, I absolutely second your last three sentences. Cribcage 16:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Well, after some consideration, I am compelled to oppose here.  I do not often vote in such things, but I am not at all certain I agree with many of this user's views on WP administration, particularly regarding resolution of disputes without recourse to enforced procedure and regulations.  Specific examples include Avala's RfAr evidence (which, while not containing any specific objections which would on their own disqualify a user from adminship, exemplifies my general feelings), and an opinion that mediation is not helpful; however, I also have a broad non-specific objection to hir general attitude and opinions in such matters.  While adminship should be something bestowed upon anyone willing to enforce the community's decisions, rather than an ability to enforce one's own views, there is at present a certain status associated with adminship and it does result in one's own opinions, however inadvertantly, carrying more weight than a normal user's.  I therefore cannot personally support adminship for those whose desired procedures differ so much from my own. &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 00:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)  Having considered this further, I am changing my vote to neutral; not because my opinion has changed, but because I do not feel comfortable opposing a nomination on the grounds that I personally disagree with the direction the community is taking.  The solution to the exhalted admin status seems to be in having more admins, not less. &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 06:41, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
 * 2) Guanaco 11:55, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) For the same reasons as Lysine.
 * 3) He surely is experienced and respected enough, but he is maybe too bold and therefore I'm unsure that he won't make something wrong by the negligence. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 00:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if I care to respond:
 * 1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
 * A. Yes.
 * 2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
 * A. Yes. Hell, I already do some of those chores. Now I can just speedily delete things myself instead of having to tag them and wait for someone else to do it. :)
 * 3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
 * A. I watch recent changes for vandal updates and either revert or tag them for speedy deletion. I intend to continue this. I track vandalizing users and report them frequently to ViP. I intend to continue this, and also to monitor ViP for reports that need to be dealt with.
 * 4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
 * A. At the moment, I'm pretty proud of 2004 Tour de France. I would be proud of Michel Foucault, but I got distracted before I really finished work on it. Oh, and Video game theory is pretty spiffy, though also in need of expansion. (Yes, I confess, I have a bad habit of writing half of an article before flitting off to some other task. But I really like the halves of articles I write!)
 * 5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
 * A. What is a troll. It didn't pass, and I'm sympathetic to people who say it needs more work (I intend to put that work in once the vote ends), but I think it's a great start towards a real problem.
 * 6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
 * A. Heteronormativity. I tried to settle a dispute between some users and wound up basically pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving the article still a mess. I should have stayed a bit cooler, and couched my objections in existant Wikipedia policies like verifiability. Big learning experience. Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks and good luck! -- Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

There is one condition for my support. Could you give up of support (he supported you earlier) of User:GeneralPatton who called me "cunt", then he said "I will shit on your kings picture" etc. He used abbrevation ZDS of Ustasha movement, the fascist movement. Only thing I ask to give up of him and similar users to show that you are an example of dealing with such users and that you are ready to become an admin. [[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 20:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * For more about Avala and his way of doing things see Requests_for_comment/Avala.-- GeneralPatton 02:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I never requested comment of GeneralPatton attacks, for an example when he called me a cunt. [[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I am uninterested in doing favors in return for support, for obvious reasons, however, to make clear, I have never supported personal attacks, and, in fact, actively oppose them, including GeneralPatton's attacks to Avala, as well as Avala's hostile responses. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and there is no excuse for them. Snowspinner 20:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Favor? I just wanted to make things clear. I will be neutral for the next few days to see the situation and then I will decide. [[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 20:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's none of my business, but I'm curious since you announced it: What does "to see the situation" mean? Is it basically, "I like to follow the pack -- so if there's a consensus, that's how I'll vote"? Cribcage 06:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For everybody's reference, the previous (failed) RfA can be found at. Snowspinner 22:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)