Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tmorton166


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

Tmorton166
Final (7/21/16) Ended 16:10, 2006-08-30 (UTC)

– I have been around here for more than 4 months now and having amassed a decent number of edits and a good grounding in Wiki policy I thought it would be a good time to see what the rest of you all thought about me being an admin!

I started editing properly here at the very end of April this year when a request was posted on a blog for someone to write the MINERVA article. I obliged (and it was an OK effort) and soon got addicted to this place.

Mostly I flit around doing different things. Some cleanups and rewrites (I like to rewrite the smaller poorer articles) as well as RC patrol and Vandal fighting (I was approved early for VP access). At one point I was an active member of medcab but found it too time consuming and have mostly stopped taking cases. At the moment I have mostly been working on WikiProject Wikify with User:Ladybirdintheuk (whose idea it was)designing templates, writing the page and of course wikifying articles. I like to take the wikify process further and, when I find an article I feel I can add more too or rewrite, I make basic cleanups and revisions. My other big personal project is working on computer magazine articles. Working on categorizing them effectively, putting them in a formatted list and working on the formatting and content of them all (infobox etc.). To that purpose I created the template Computer Magazines and modified the magazines infobox slightly. This project was inspired by my work on the Micro Mart article (which still needs alot of work).

I guess the rest will be answered in the questions below so I'll leave it there! Thanks in advance for your comments - whether in support or not :D Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: gee I guess so --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: Obviously I will take part in the usual admin type activites like the deletions (speedy, proposed and afd closing), I know there is not a backlog in these places but I still think the more the merrier in acheiving prompt and fair results.
 * I am also around quite frequently so am able to monitor the various admin noticeboards (WP:ANI etc.) throughout the day. One area I think gets neglected is requested moves wich has a 280 article backlog (at this time) and could do with some work. Also of use will be the use of page protection, as the semi-protection of pages is something that doesn't (IMO) get used enough (as a temporary measure). Personally the semi-protection may come in useful for any mediation cases I take as it is a frequent occurrence that participants continue edit wars as anons. whilst discussion is underway - usually leading to a collapse of the mediation.
 * Finally I think the main area I will want ot work on is Copyright_problems, there is a massive backlog that needs work and, as it is sometimes a long process to verify, few people seem around to do it. I come across Copyvios quite frequently when wikifying articles and I hate having ot add one more to a list that always looks really long. To be honest I quite enjoy things like that so I wouldn't mind this work! (yes I know sad!)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:All of my contributions really, I love to write (when I can spell :P) and I think I have contributed some good bits. Specfically MINERVA (mod), not because it was amazing (it was only an average article looking back now) but because I am proud of my first contrbution. Other than that my work on WikiProject Wikify and the related templates. Oh and my various edits to Computer magazines and the articles on that list (inc. the tmeplate), probably because of the amount of time it toook to do all the work so far :D. And most recently I am quite pleased with the rewrite I did of National schism which I found whilst doing some wikifying work. It's not perfect and needs work by someone with more detailed knowledge but I am pleased with it.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I am generally a well meaning person and hardly ever take offense. I cant think of a situation where a Wikipedian could offend me, having heard it all before :P I find that taking a step back and discussing politely (even if the other person won't) relieves you of both stress and blame. Aside from that I have not really been in any conflicts, In my role as a mediator I tried to diffuse them but never came into an actual dispute with someone. There have been the minor discussions in the past over points of principle or issue but never anything that got nasty or greatly affected articles.


 * Comments


 * See Tmorton166's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
 * My edit count (Interiot's Tool) as of the time on this stamp. Tmorton166 (Talk) 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)




 * Current tally: (7/21/16)


 * Support
 * 1) First support looks okay, and we need more WikiGnome admins - this one's been hard at work wikifying. :D Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alas, you have only 1881 edits total. However, I still stand by my !vote - keep up your work and you'll surely be successful in 3 months, if not now. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Freddy 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Added by User:205.188.116.72. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moral support Switch to neutral per Bunch of Grapes dif and ratioanle. :) Dlohcierekim 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Would have liked to see more *fD edits in last 1,000. From what I saw judgment looks sound. The copyright problem is a big ugly knot. I would like to see many more edits in that area before you try tackling it as an admin. Overall, as a wikignome, you just need more edits and more substantial edits. I did not see any obvious blunders or incivility. As per  the DrunkenSmurf and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh you show a lot of potential. Keep it up. :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. LordNasher 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) This user registered one minute before his support vote.  Srose   (talk)  20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User blocked indef. Nacon kantari  19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Joecrede 20:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC) striking till vote is confirmed as not being myself --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This account was opened today. Do you know that we can track this account and tell if you, LordNasher (and possibly Tmorton166) is the same person? Oran e  ( talk  &bull;  cont. ) 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I utterly deny this and would like to strike this vote, is that allowed (Ill do it and if not someone else can). Please ask for a checkuser to be sure if you want. --Errant Tmorton166 (Talk)(Review me) 21:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't new users be able to vote? Joecrede 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. This is a consensus building process. See Bunchofgrapes' comment below. A brand new user probably is not as aware of how to evaluate an RfA candidate's suitability as (s)he will be after gaining more experience. The "vote" of someone who has never before participated in the community is somewhat concerning. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This voter also showed up for geo.plrd's RfA.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User blocked indef. Nacon kantari  19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support G e o. 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Long term support meets my standards and I think all substantive concerns can be addressed for the future. There are, for instance, browser plug-ins that can run basic spellcheck.  Eluchil404 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Very strong support - probably one of the most friendly users around. Tom is courteous and insightful, and the Wikipedia community would only benefit if he gained the mop. He always places the progress of Wikipedia close to the top of his priority listing, and is more-than-happy to give up a little bit of his time to help a user in need - I'm still editing Wikipedia solely because of him. The best candidate I have seen (along with GIen, now Glen_S) for a fair while @ RfA.  Daniel . Bryant  07:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Quality and quantity of edits are sufficient, I think. --Gray Porpoise 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I recall this user's discussions as civil and have noticed its desire to promote a positive and welcoming culture within Wikipedia.--Patchouli 07:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral Support - he has good intentions and is working to make Wikipedia better -- Lost(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose -- sorry, fails my current criteria of nine months, try again in six months and would probably support--T-rex 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose With less than 2000 edits and only 3 months I would have to be blown away to support a candidate and in this case I am not. Great job wikifying so far, but I personally think it is entirely too soon to be considered for an admin at this point. Would support with current track record in 6 months or so. DrunkenSmurf 15:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per DrunkenSmurf. VanM 16:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose; 23 August 2006: "No voting isn't evil that is a fallacy, voting is essential for concensus." &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not following you. Could you elaborate? :) Dlohcierekim 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Voting is evil is a pretty well-respected essay, and however one feels about voting, thinking it is "essential for concensus" shows a serious lack of understanding of consensus. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me better understand your vote and consensus. We do indeed get too hung up on "voting". :) Dlohcierekim 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly this is an important issue that will take too long to cover in an RfA, but it is something I feel strongly about. People are highly opposed to admiting to voting here on Wikipedia, instead calling it consensus. In truth no decision can be reached without a vote - not in the election context of the word but on the ideal that you have to make a decision about your opinion. For example on an AFD most people make a clear cut decision, sure it gets discussed and changed at times but it is still a choice. The fact that it can be from an almost infinite number of options (delete, dekte and merge, keep etc) doesnt detract from the fact that it is still a vote! However this is where it gets sticky. We ask for consensus - that in itelf can mean alot of things, even a majority vote (I suppose tht would even be the literal meaning). The point is that no matter how much we claim to hate them we are constantly voting in all of these things...  My point I was making in the edit you mention is that it is not the actual act of voting, or making a choice that matters, it is the rationale behind it. For example your choice here only held weight with Dlohcierekim when you gave rationale for it. So the problem, in my humble opinion, is not what we call the thing  but what weight an opinion carries. That is whats important. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You asked me to come back and discuss this some more. In truth I have a hard time following your reply, and didn't want to appear to be piling on by saying so. As I read it, I see you saying a number of different things: One, that any decision-making process can be called a vote. Two, that you think we don't like votes on Wikipedia because there aren't just a few choices but "an almost infinite number". Three, that "consensus" can mean a majority vote (and that would be its literal meaning). Four, that voting isn't evil because we don't count the votes but instead act on the rationales behind them. Number One isn't really true, neither in the general usage of the word "vote" nor in what we take it to mean around here. Number Two is just confusing. Sometimes there actually are just two choices... and voting is still generally evil in those cases. Number Three, that's just a misdefinition of "consensus"... again, as used both in the real world, and, especially as used on Wikipedia. Number four has a kernel of truth in it, but if we're not counting votes, but rationales, then... we're not really "voting" to begin with. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied on the talk page so as not to clog up this page. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Please do not take this personally. With less than 200 edits, it is difficult to support someone unless he/she had made exceptional edits. Carry on your good work and re-apply again after three months. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Nothing personal, as I myself am somewhat inexperienced at Wikipedia, but this is an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias take the time to spell correctly. I can understand making a typo here and there during the course of editing, but to be so careless to do it in your request to become an administrator?  That shows carelessness in a situation that should require the utmost attention, and thus also shows a bit of irresponsibility.  --Rodzilla 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am mildly Dyslexic and have always had trouble with my spelling, even easy words. My main problem is Identifying errors after I make them. For example I often type teh and will not spot that mistake --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The comment Bunchofgrapes points out demonstrates to me that this user is wholly unsuitable for adminship, as he misunderstands a fundamental aspect of the way decision-making processes work on Wikipedia. His attempts to weasel his way out of what he said only solidify my opposition.--SB | T 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Im sorry you feel that I am trying to weasel out, I stand by what I said; IMO the whole Voting is evil thing is a fallacy. I dont think I am misunderstanding the process rather disputing what is there. Sitting on the fence is pointless and time consuming! However I wonder does an opinion make me unsuitable for adminship? I disagree with a policy but at the moment it is an accepted policy so I will of course abide by it - doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I should probably point out that I do not agree with the opposite argument either --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. While I think four months is a sufficient amount of time for most dedicated editors, your lack of edits doesn't convince me that you are ready for adminship. This is not editcountitis talking here either. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, how do you mean lack of edits not being editcountitis? Im not sure I follow :-P, is there something specifically wrong with my editing (please et me know as I would like to address any problems) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean that while I'm not using editcountitis as a measuring stick to judge your edits, quality of edits doesn't mean too much when the edit count is simply too low. It doesn't give enough of a sense of what kind of editor you are, nor does it give me an idea of your experience level. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A good editor who needs a bit more time and experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 01:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, sorry. Doesn't meet my standards in terms of edits. A little more time... Ifnord 04:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. not enough time here.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose insufficient experience, plus comment provided by Bunchofgrapes, and candidates reply even more so. Pete.Hurd 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Sympathetic oppose - my first issue is just you not having the best English. Now, this isn't usually too much of a problem for me, and I'm very sympatetic to ESL people, but being an admin requires a very good knowledge of the language.  Now, even then, I really wouldn't care if it was among your WP and U space contribs, but in your own RFA nomination, it requires a bit more.  Other than that, you're still borderline as to whether I'd vote support or neutral.  Anyways, sorry about the alleged sockpuppetry, that same thing happened to my RFA, where new/anon/sock/imposter users (I think like 3 or 4) came and "supported" me - needed a checkuser.  Anyways, best of luck next time.  If English is your primary language, I would suggest using it more carefully in the future, it it's not, I applaud you for being able to speak it relatively well.  Good luck, later, Zapptastic (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Zapptastic. Michael 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose for insufficient inexperience.--Jusjih 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose&mdash;Self nominations must reach a higher standard. And Tmorton166 is rather light on experience; even for someone nominated by others. Finally it saddens me to read, "This page has been protected so that only established users can edit it." Of course it is unfair to attribute this to any individual, but any taint of potential sockpuppetry in the RfA process is saddening. Willing to reconsider later, but not today. Williamborg (Bill) 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose too short a time and not enough contributions from which to make a good judgement. Considering the state of this RFA I would suggest you formally pull out and try again when you have built up more contributions to the project.--Jersey Devil 08:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Fortunately [User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] has written pretty much what I wanted to say. --kingboyk 08:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose because of edit count. Sorry. -- Alex  talk here 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak oppose - just not enough experience. Keep up the good work so far and try again in six months. Budgiekiller 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak oppose - Need more time and experience. This oppose is on that issue only.  Would probably vote Support in somewhat near future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ram-Man (talk • contribs).


 * Neutral
 * 1) neutral Not a lot of edits, not bothering to spell ("wich has"). Sounds polite, though. Aran|heru|nar 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is a great compliment (politness) :D, see my reply to Rodzilla for spelling issues --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, would like to see a bit more edits and overall experience--TBC TaLk?!? 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Pat on the back Neutral, you want to sort out copvio's and do an awful lot of admin chors, but you don't have a huge WP amount of edits suggesting possible inexperience. Even though I loved your answer to question 1, especially the last bit (always good having honest people around :)) I think you should keep editing and keep participating so anyone voting on any of your future RfA's will be confident to support you. Keep editing for a good few months, get known, wait for someone to nominate you and you should make it. Good luck. ;) -- Andeh 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, leaning toward support Sure, the editor has been here for just a little under four months, but I think he shows a good grasp of policy. I like that he has a lot of user talk edits, and 1 mainspace talk edit for every 4.5 mainspace edits. Tmorton seems like he knows how he wants to help WP, and could use the tools. I don't think the user would in any way abuse the tools, but I also wouldn't want him getting overzealous with the ability to semiprotect articles. I am just a bit concerned by how long the user has been on WP, but even moreso concerned that the MINERVA article has been tagged for tone for almost as long as Tmorton has been working on it- if you're so proud of the article, why not do a slight rewrite so that the tag is unnecessary? -- Kicking222 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that is true, Im more proud of the actual creation of the article / initial version than the fact that it is a good one (it isn't). I would love to improve it but I think my initial version was NPOV and that I could not look at it opinionatedly. I was looking to add a crticisms section a while ago but had trouble sourcing it. I am not happy with the article but I dont think that a) my personal liking of the game will allow me to write neutrally and b) that I know enough about the background (I only play it I dont follow all the back story) of the mod to write it up correctly. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I just don't see a need for the mop and flamethrower at this point. However, adminship is not a trophy or a promotion; it's merely an extra chore list!  You're a great user; I've seen you around quite frequently.  You don't really need the tools to do what you're doing, though.  Edit count doesn't trouble me; I think people put far too much weight on that criterion.  Try reverting more vandalism and participating more heavily in AfDs, if you're sure you'd rather be an admin than a gnome (both are extremely valuable to the encyclopedia).   Srose   (talk)  15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it is a chore if you like but I kinda enjoy it - and I like to read the articles I edit and learn as I go along win win. As to not needing the tools, well that always seems to come up in RfA, all I can say is that how can you have a need if you have no access. There are numerous situations (and Im sure you get this) where I just wish that I could sort soemthing out instantly rather than having to tag it and wait months for someone else to come along :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn sorry one more comment if I may (I dont want to look like Im hounding anyone). AFD's I am always wary of, generally they are clear cut cases that just have one outspoken editor who wants to argue it out - well there is no point joinig in that just to join the conflict. Unless of course they have a good point. As to the rest I will vote if I feel strongly about an article or I feel an issue hasbn't been mentioned or addressed but I really dont like constantly voting delete per or keep per. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I don't feel hounded. You have every right to question me!!! :) Oh, boy, do I agree with you - I try extremely hard not to use "keep per" or "delete per" unless there's no consensus and I completely support one of the solutions.  My only concern is that you don't participate in enough AfDs for me to be absolutely sure that you have a solid knowledge of policy.  I also share your frustrations with waiting for someone else to block a vandal, but you don't seem to revert vandalism very frequently - most of your edits seem to be wikifying, cleaning up, etc., which you don't need the tools for.  Anyway, I'd like to see some more conclusive evidence that you know the policies very well... a few months from now, with that evidence (preferably in XfDs, where knowledge can be clearly determined by a user's comments), I will absolutely, wholeheartedly support you.  You're a great user - I just want to see more admin-like activities so I can predict how you'll act when you have the real tools.  Srose   (talk)  18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that I agree with what you say and respect your worries about my policy knowledge of AFD's. I will tak into account what you (and others) have said and try and do more varied things, I see what you mean about lack of admin like activities. It looks like this RfA is going to fail and In a way I am quite pleased, alot of the feedback has been good - especially encouraging is the lack of Snow. In all honesty adminship was a way for me to find something new to do! I guess I'll have to try other things :-P - maybe try some other foundation wiki's... cheers --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * oh and I desperately wanted to be the 1,000 admin.... :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Switch to neutral per Bunch of Grapes dif and ratioanle. :) Dlohcierekim 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral would like to see more edits and much more experience from the user --Ageo020 22:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I too would like to see more edits. With more edits and greater participation, you'll be a great candidate in a few months. Keep up the good work! Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - I'm not going to pile on and oppose, but he needs a bit more time to get experience and make out his case. Metamagician3000 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Merovingian - Talk 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Keep up the good work, maybe in a few months. --Richman271talk/con 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Seems like a good user, but I would like a few more edits and more time on wikipedia to see exactly how this user will use the tools. More experience is needed. Th ε Halo Θ 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral with sympathy for the nominee, who clearly has the best of intentions and is a good contributor. Just keep up the contributions, make many more edits in various namespaces, and come back in a few months.-- danntm T C 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral. I had to think for a long time about this, and I still didn't make up my mind.  The candidate seems to mean well, work hard, and go out of his way to communicate with other editors.  The only problem is, reviewing his contribs, he is often difficult to read due to typos and other errors.  He wants to work on WP:CP, which is MOST welcome, but I have found that this area requires a lot of interaction with other editors.  I'm afraid that intent and meaning will get lost in his communications, and as a result, editors will get the wrong ideas or be put off.  I'm willing to be talked into supporting. :) --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ill be happy to try and talk you round if you like :D. I have trouble making up my mind all the time so I can sympathise. With respect to my communication is there anything in specific that you have noticed. Is it for example typo's (I will admit they are a problem) or my general sentence construction. My mind does tend to ramble, things that make sense to me at the time read crappy at later stages. Or is there something else? I do like to interact with other people and if you feel this is something I need to work on then let me know - this is after all a process of advice as well (or at least thats how I am looking at it!) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral --Ter e nce Ong (T 10:58, 26 August 2006 (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.