Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikihermit 2


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

Wikihermit
'''Final: (28/18/6); Ended 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC). Candidate withdrew. --Deskana (talky) 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)'''

- Dear Wikipedians!

I'm honored to present Wikihermit as a candidate for adminship.

Wikihermit is a great editor, as well as a botop. He has helped raise Chambersburg to GA status. He comments in various XfD's, and recently, in AfD's and MfD's. He's a friendly and helpful editor who would profit from the admin tools. He has imporved since his last, disastrous RfA. He made numerous mistakes that led to the fiasco, but now I can say he has vastly improved. Sysoping Wikihermit will benifit Wikipedia a lot; I hope you agree.  Maxim (talk)  20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept :). ~   Wi ki  her mit  20:27, 3 September 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 mainly take part in backlogged areas of wikipedia. The first is Wikipedia's suspected copyright violations. I currently help with tagging possible copyvios, however I am unable to delete blatant violations tagged with db-copyvio. Another another I intend to help with is WP:CFD/W. After a bot makes a run the old categories often need to be deleted and removed from the page. Finally I intend to help with the CSD backlog.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I don't consider myself to be an expert in any one area of wikipedia and because of that I don't have a group of my best contributes. One thing I am proud of is my bot. I have put a lot of time into programming it to help out with boring wikipedia task. I think my contributes to wikipedia through vandal fighting and newpage patrolling has been helpful and am I proud of them. Finally I have had some main space contributes that I am proud of, like having a hand in getting Chambersburg, Pennsylvania to GA status, wikignoming articles, and creating basic articles.


 * 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 have never really been involved in any serious edit warring, although I have had some disagreements. My first disagreement was in April with nick mallory over archiving talk pages. I was still new then, but thought that archiving talk pages was necessary.  I  approached him about it and a minor conflict ensued for a day, until another editor came along and said to knock it off. One thing that caused me wiki-stress was my first rfa. I had made a stupid mistake by creating a diverse userbox, for which I apologize to any users I offended. That was not my intent and it was foolish of me to make something like that. However, at the time I didn't know what gave users that thought (I didn't realize what I had titled it) and it bothered me that users thought I wasn't tolerate. Another problem with my rfa was that I added that I wanted to be a 'crat steward, ect. I had thought that adminship was sort of a trophy that users got for being helpful and I thought it would be something that was fun. Since that time I was sysopped for a day on simple english wikibooks to help clear out the backlog. Doing that was not what I thought it would be like and I realized that being an admin was just helping out and volunteering with different parts of wikipedia. My next disagreement was with Matthew, which was a content dispute about trivia at the end of June. Matthew had removed an entire trivia section and placed it on the talk page. I reverted Matthew, who then reverted me. Matthew had left a message on my talk page that bothered me, and caused me to have a mini wikiflip out. I reverted Matthew again and flipped out in my edit summary. I was again reverted by another user this time. I realized now that  I was  wrong  with WP:TRIVIA and Matthew did the right thing by removing that section. Instead of flipping out, I would have tried to have discussed it with Matthew.

Optional question from  T Rex  | talk
 * 4. Could you please explain what [[Image:Antigay.png]] was?
 * A. A mistake.
 * Further clarification: I felt that I answered this in question three, but I will clarify. To be short and to the point, the image was a rainbow flag with a "x" through it, and said 'This user is opposed to homosexuality and doesn't support civil unions and gay marriage'. First, it was a mistake on my part to make it. Any sort of discrimination in a collaborative environment like wikipedia is completely inappropriate. Now, why did I create it and would think nothing is wrong which it? I'd seen a userbox with "God" crossed out: User:Hirak 99/Userbox/User Atheist2. In my mind I saw that these were similar because both were "opposed" to something, and thought they carried equal weight. The first userbox hadn't been deleted, so I thought the same of the other. However, they are different (at the time I didn't think that). Their is no proof of an existence of a god/goddess in everyone's mind, however there is no denying homosexuality as something that doesn't exist, it clearly does. I myself have no problems with anyones particular sexuality, and by creating that I was making a point (even one that I disagreed with). Again, I am not homophobic and it was a mistake on my behalf.

General comments

 * Links for Wikihermit:

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


 * Wikihermit mentions the discussion he had with me about my user page. I'd just like to say it was a storm in a tea cup and nobody should oppose him because of that.  Nick mallory 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Maxim (talk)  20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support - I think Wikihermit would make a good administrator. -- Cobi(t 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I've seen the editor around and from what I've seen he has made pretty good contributions. I don't see any reason not to trust this user with the extra tools. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I see no reason to oppose.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Tea anyone? 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - comments like this are really not helpful, but you are an overall great editor :-) Good luck! -- Boricu æ  ddie  20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Improved much since last time, Wikihermit needs to become an admin :) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No problems here, good editor. Support -- Hdt 83   Chat 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak Support I was harsh to go netural at first. I would like to thank Boricuaeddie for striking out my vote. I was planning to at first go oppose, but decided on netural. Then I believe what Wikihermit said below about my Netural !vote. I am now going Weak Support because other than this mishap Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Politics_rule, he is a, and excuse my language, a damn good editor. If you find that offensive, strike it, but it's true. Good luck! Politics rule 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) (ecx2)I've seen him around, and I have no problems with this user. -- Ne ra n e i  (talk)  20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I supported this user in the previous RfA, so I suppose I'll support here too :) ♠  TomasBat   20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Good editor. Good background and good experiences with this editor I have.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I've always wondered why Wikihermit wasn't an admin yet... - Lemonflash (do something)  21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Definitly suppport a brill user and an excellent mediator on MEDCAB-- Pheonix15 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I told you that you'd have nothing to fear! – Animum  21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 
 * 15) Strong support - excellent candidate. A lot has happened since the last RfA, I feel. No issues whatsover here. Go for it! - A l is o n  ☺ 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong Support - Alison worded it nicely. Give'im the mop! -- Hirohisat Kiwi 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Meets my standards.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Switch to oppose per answer to question 3. Nom "flipped out" less than 3 months ago. An edit war so recently suggests the possibility of wheel warring. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Very good editor, and my experiences with Wikihermit have been nothing but positive and good. I expect the same will come with the tools.  Jmlk  1  7  21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Don't have time to say much right now, but the=is user is certainly trustworthy. GDonato (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support great editor, I think Wikihermit would make a great admin. Oysterguitarist 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support great guy, wanted to conom Martinp23 22:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it :). ~   Wi ki  her mit  22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) (ec2, once by candidate) Support I feel that this editor has learned from his mistakes, which we can all make in early wiki-membership, and will make a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Wikihermit is a thoroughly nice person who I think has learned a great deal since his previous RfA and is now more than ready to become an admin. He always shows a great willingness to take on board any advice or criticism and learn from it, and this is a really important asset in my books. I have no doubt that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely. Will (aka Wimt ) 23:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Suppose  Not sure he is ready. —AldeBaer 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (change to neutral)
 * 1) --W.marsh 23:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The candidate seems ready for adminship. No red flags that I can see. Majoreditor 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. It is time to give him the mop. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Since no-one thought to tell me he was in RfA! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the above is a sarcastic comment. My actual belief is Wikihermit is a fantastic editor that deserves the tools. Sarcasm is perfect for online media (meta link, anyone?)
 * 1) Support Has made mistakes. The anti-gay user box was a particularly striking lack of judgment. Still, I think the overall impact of his sysoping would benefit the project. Pascal.Tesson 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Albeit fairly weak. While Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it also is not censored. While I don't at all like his apparent political stances, I have no problem at all with the userbox he created. Indeed, in the interest of full disclosure, if a user has any such strongly held controversial opinions, I'd like them to say it up front. These controversies aside, he seems to be a fine editor who is primarily concerned with bettering Wikipedia. Most of his more egregious errors, IMHO, seem to be well behind him. My one suggestion to this user would be to avoid articles where you have a strong opinion. Personally, I have very strong political and philosophical/religious beliefs, and therefore stay away from those types of articles, save for gnomish edits such as reverting vandalism, adding citations, that sort of thing. Just my two cents, good luck! faithless   (speak)  07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose, sorry. All out of honesty, I don't really know if I can trust this user. I recall questioning his judgement/character in many, many occasions.-- Hús  ö  nd  22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * namely...? – Animum  22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 
 * Not namely. I won't search through hundreds of contributions just to find a few diffs of situations that made me have this stance. Just as I don't have to peruse the contributions of those users that I promptly support because I can immediately remember having had a good impression of their work, character and trustworthiness, the same happens with the opposite. Hús  ö  nd  01:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've always wondered why RfA-goers hassle opposers, but not supporters... — Animum  |  talk ''']] 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, although it's natural that opposers be questioned since they're the ones raising a problem. I hope I didn't sound like I was ranting at your request for examples. It's good that accusations be backed by diffs, but in this case it's an overall impression formed through a long time. Hús  ö  nd  02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose like Husond, I am concerned about this user's judgment. This neutral and this neutral from August 29 provide no explanation rationale apart from "for now", which is unhelpful. This oppose on Carlossuarez46's RfA and this neutral on Jreferee's RfA were uncalled for, as nearly everyone else who participated there had moved past the incidents mentioned on those RfAs. Finally, the MfD of Politics rules’ user page was not the only bad MfD I’ve seen from this user; this was a violation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I don’t feel comfortable supporting this user at this time. Acalamari 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationales for the two RfA's you listed were probably unhelpful yes, but both were neutral and were made within two hours of the RfAs being started with both opposes and supports. I felt it was too early to support or oppose myself because neither had shown too strong of points. I would say I didn't go about handling the user page too well. Two of the four images were fair use, which aren't allowed in the userspace. At the time I felt that the userpage wasn't deletable under WP:CSD because it wasn't fully fair use images so I submitted a MfD for wider input. Looking back on it, it would have been better to remove the two fair use images instead of submitting a MfD. The RfAs comments from me on Jreferee's and carl's were the left over from my failed RfA, which made me bitter at the time for Rfas and that was an error in judgment on my part. Opposing for a block two years was stupid on my behalf. ~   Wi ki  her mit  22:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With the RfAs, the best thing to do would have been to hold off on participating until you feel either the supporters, opposers, or neutrals convince you to comment rather than putting in "Neutral for now", which, as I said, is unhelpful. With the MfD I mentioned, you were correct in saying that you should have removed the fair-use images (instead of MfD'ing the page), but after doing that, the next course of action would have been to leave a polite message on the user's talk page, explaining your action. As for the opposition to Carlossuarez's RfA and the neutral to Jreferee's RfA, if they were done, as you say, out of bitterness for your RfA not being a success, that only gives me more concern here. Acalamari 03:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per answer to Q.4. I was only vaguely aware of the last RfA and assumed it failed due to lack of experience. Now, looking through it fully, the poor judgment shown in creating User:UBX/homophobic and Image:Antigay.png staggers me. Dunno what answer I was looking for - but I guess a bit more of an insight into the incident than "a mistake". Wikihermit's done some good work elsewhere, but I'm not comfortable with trusting him with the tools yet. WjBscribe 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey WJBscribe. I felt like I answered that question more throughly in Q3, you'll just have to dig through that pile :). ~   Wi ki  her mit  00:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read Q3 as well - I think Q4 was asking for more detail. We get that you know it was a stupid thing to do - your last RfA crashed and burned because of it so I guess you could hardly miss that. I'm still trying to understand why you created the box. It doesn't look like you added it to your userpage or any of your subpages - so it presumably wasn't for you. So why did you create it? I'm having difficulty understanding the mindset of someone who thinks, "Much as I don't want to use this box, I think what Wikipedia is really missing is a userbox that says: This user is opposed to homosexuality and doesn't support civil unions and gay marriage," and gets on with creating it. And yes, I'd like more reassurances about your attitudes in terms of dealing with on-wiki statements that could be construed as encouraging discrimination/hate speech and what constitutes a divisive userbox. WjBscribe 01:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Switch to oppose per answer to question 3. Nom "flipped out" less than 3 months ago. An edit war so recently suggests the possibility of wheel warring. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And if I had half a brain, I would have remembered to add, "Needs more time/experience, but clearly moving in the right direction. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he flipped out once? I flipped out on IRC a few days ago when I was in a bad mood, insulting someone who didn't deserve it at all. Does this mean I am unsuitable as an admin, or a bureaucrat? I apologised afterwards, so it was no big deal. I don't see how one instance of Wikihermit flipping out means he is unsuitable as an administrator. --Deskana (talky) 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Deskana. True, we all have our off moments and do things we later regret. This can lead to unfortunate outcomes when coupled with admin powers. If it had been more safely in the past, no, I would not have opposed. But I generally don't support when the problem was less than 3 months ago.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Wikihermit has done some very good work here on WP overall. While he did create that divisive anti-LGBT userbox, it was several months ago, before his last RfA, and he does seem to have learned from that mistake, so I would not oppose on that basis alone. However, some of his more recent edits still leave me hesitant as to whether he will be a neutral, unbiased administrator when dealing with articles related to LGBT and other issues: for example, removing a sentence from a paragraph as "controversial and unsourced", while leaving the rest of the unsourced, equally potentially controversial paragraph intact; several instances of "drive-by" tagging articles for cleanup and sourcing without much explanation, or putting forward an effort to help; and this somewhat puzzling edit to Women's rights, singling out a particular sentence ("In the developed nations of the world, women have continued to struggle against discrimination.") as needing a cite, when he could have just as easily found a cite from one of the several external links. He also does not appear to have added any input on the articles' talk pages as to how he feels they should be improved, leaving behind only generic templates. For these reasons, I'm not sure I can fully trust him with the tools at this time. -- krimpet ⟲  02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to bug every oppose, but I'm inclined to reply. This edit was made because not every republican is opposed to civil unions, it read as if Democrats were all for it, when in reality some democrats are against it. Adding the unreferenced template was done because the page was rarely sourced. As far as this edit goes, I wasn't sure what I was thinking. This edit I still somewhat agree with, although discussion on the talk page would have been a lot better as it would of explained my reasonings. ~   Wi ki  her mit  02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. One thing that really turns me off about a candidate is unreasonable or unhelpful opposition to the nominations of other admin hopefuls, which demonstrates to me that the user does not understand adminship enough to be trusted with the tools. Acalamari's diffs are evident of this problem. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Acalamari diffs, not per Q4.  T Rex  | talk  04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose No serious research & article development efforts & too short of a stay & too many minor edits that even bots could do. In other words, you talk a lot but don't do much. Again, you haven't been in Wikipedia long enough. (Wikimachine 04:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
 * 4) Oppose I would accept the explanation for the userboxes, except I wonder why this user has numerous edits to gender issue articles such as this one, which make me feel there is a lack of NPOV here, which is essential for an admin.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I think others have highlighted the issues with which I tend to agree re Q.3 and 4 and just a sense that should try again in 6 months, SqueakBox 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per above comments.  Someone who can so readily bring politics onto Wikipedia as to create such a divisive userbox does not have the demeanor I tend to look for in admins.--Danaman5 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I hate doing this, but WJBscribe and Acalamari point out extremely troubling behavior (in my opinion) in their comments. -- Dark Falls   talk 06:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose — I actually had this RfA watchlisted, primarily because I do not trust this person. Needless to say I don't believe we need homophobic administrators or ones that flagrantly misunderstand policy and guidelines (example/example). You're also a very power hungry person, for example you ran off to an isolated wiki after your last RfA failed and tried to obtain adminship there... a day after you joined. Matthew 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although the situation on that wiki was completely different. ~   Wi ki  her mit  13:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Wikimachine. The JPS talk to me  13:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - until there is a much longer time gap since edits on articles which appear NPOV. You should note that Wikihermit has at least been an active contributor to Simple Wikibooks, despite his failed RFA there, which is a good sign for the future. Chrislintott 13:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that is a totally different situation. ~   Wi ki  her mit  13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm inclined to oppose based on the past judgment issues and the RfA on Simple Wikibooks just a day after registering. It also seems a bit hypocritical that you opposed people for their actions from months/years ago, yet you continued with this RfA despite some recent incidents in the past few months. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely not, per WJBscribe's observations. A "mistake" is forgetting to sign a comment.  You might regret creating the userbox because it reveals your character, but it's far from a simple mistake. --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  14:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'll never oppose a candidate merely for his/her "real-life" views -- however, as others have said, Wikihermit has a history of odd POV edits to articles on gender/sexuality issues (including the userboxes). He disavows that this represents his person view, but POV edits are still bad, no matter what one's personal view may be. Xoloz 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Netural leaning oppose I am netural per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Politics_rule. Politics rule 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, c'mon, Pat. I think it's clear he has acknowledged that that was a mistake. No need to go neutral because of it :-) -- Boricu æ  ddie  20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say I'd have to agree with you PR. That was stupid of me to do, I rushed through it with TW and didn't give a valid reason for deletion. I made the mistake of failing to talk to you first, which I did after I'd Mfd'd it. ~   Wi ki  her mit  20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral I really want to support this user, but there's a voice in the back of my head telling me it's a horrible idea. I'm not sure if it's something about this editor though, or just my own insanity, but, while I otherwise feel pretty good about supporting this user, this gut feeling I suppose you'd call it is very concerning. -- lucid 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I get that feeling a lot! =) Politics rule 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in gut feelings, only in hard science. Diffs would really help; there must be something you can trace that feeling back to. There are two opposes with somewhat similar rationales so far, and there must be something to it, or otherwise you guys wouldn't just say that out of the blue, I suppose. —AldeBaer 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but psychology is part of hard science. It's perfectly reasonable to have concerns or doubt about someone that you can't quite back up, it happens quite a lot. Whether it turns out to be that there actually is something to have doubt or concern over varies -- lucid 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Psychologists, hard science? Oh my gut. Ok then, nevermind. I believe I was partly asking myself because I know what you mean and I don't like leaving my own gut feelings unexplained if I can help it. Psychology, haw. :) —AldeBaer 09:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but get to think of, I'm not exactly thrilled by outbursts of drama . I know this happened more than 10 "wikiweeks" ago (which equals about 5 real-world years), yet it seems awkward to assume that the character traits behind something like that could pass without residue in such a relatively short time, and this did happen after his first RfA. I also remembered this to which I replied here. —AldeBaer 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Good user here generally speaking, nice job running bots etc. Don't undervalue your contribs at all. However, like WJBscribe, I still feel uncomfortable about that userbox episode. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) As much as I am reluctant to make this edit, and I do value your contributions very much so. I don't feel confident supporting you right now.  Sebi  [talk] 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - leaning towards weak support - edits may spread far and wide and good to deal with, but per concerns raised above I think for the first time I will have to sit on the fence. -- B e  n talk 08:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral – I wish I could support; I really do. I appreciate Wikihermit's full disclosure, and I think he's a good bot operator.  Unfortunately, I also feel that his mistakes have really been of great enough magnitude to merit a little more meditation before another RfA.  I have concerns that this user is still seeking a "rise to power", which was a concern during his last RfA; I think he needs to try a little harder to address users' concerns, particularly as a bot operator – he gives the impression, whether correct or incorrect, that he does not understand how interwiki.py works, even though his bot is executing its instructions.  Lastly, this would result in a strong oppose from me if I were even slightly less willing to assume Wikihermit's good faith.  Running a potentially controversial, unapproved task under a bot-flagged account is unacceptable, especially for a member of the BAG.  It could just as easily have been done manually or semi-automatically with AWB.  Sorry; I just cannot support at this time.  &mdash; madman bum and angel 13:58, 4 September 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.