Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naerii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Naerii

Final (17/32/11); Withdrawn 15:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Naerii (talk · contribs) - I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year and have been involved in most of the admin-type areas. I have around 3000 edits across my previous accounts and this one and have contributed to featured and good articles, as well as the candidate processes for each. I'm aware of most policies and don't intend to use the admin tools controversially. Given the dearth of nominations at the moment, I figure this is a good time to get a lot of attention to my request with some hopefully useful feedback :) -- Naerii 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: WP:AIV and closing AfDs, and perhaps getting involved in image backlogs later on. I'd also like to be involved with BLPs, but I think I'd need a lot more experience before I took on that behemoth.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of my work in conjuction with NSR77 in getting Californication (album) to FA status. I've also helped to get Costello Music to GA (with the help of a now-vanished user). I'm currently working on Give Up, on and off. I've spent some time in the past helping to review articles at WP:FAC and WP:GAC, although not as actively as I would like. I've also created the portal Portal:History of Imperial China which is nowhere near done yet and could probably do with some outside help (hint, hint).
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: Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb, which I initiated, as well as a silly moment in early March which involved me moving a page to a ridiculous title and nominating it for deletion which resulted in an indefinite block (which, I'd like to add, was quickly overturned). Discussion on this can be found in my talk page history here and on ANI here. I'd like to think that since then I've learned to be more laid back.
4. Optional question from Cameron: What are your views on your recent block? Do you think the block was fair? How would you go about things next time? If you had been the administrator would you have acted the way the administrator did?
A: No, I think 'a' block would have been fair but an indefinite block on the basis that my contributions are not for the betterment of the project was in my view over the top (and ~6 other admins agreed). To be honest, in the future I'm just going to close the tab on my browser and go make some coffee :) If I was an admin I'd probably have left either a pretty sternly worded warning or given a block for a few days, depending on the history of the editor. -- Naerii 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
5. I am willing to reconsider my !vote, but I need more complete answers than you've given above. You are not a candidate that has a sparkling record, so you need to show us why we should dig deeper into your contribs. First, why did you resign twice and come back with new accounts both times?Balloonman (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really possible to 'resign' from a volunteer activity? :P Mostly tiredness and frustration with the way Wikipedia is run at Foundation and ArbCom level, which unlike most I think is actually improving these days. I came back because I enjoy writing and expanding articles, and collaborating with other editors who enjoy the same. The new accounts had nothing to do with 'right to vanish' or anything of the like. I use a different password for every account I have and coming back after a few months it seemed easier to register a new account than to spend a half hour going through every password I could remember using in the hopes of guessing the right one. -- Naerii 20:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Discuss the arbcom case, the verdict, what you thought of it?Balloonman (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Left a note on Balloonman's talk page regarding this q as it's not accurate. -- Naerii 21:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
7. In the light of the ArbCom MfD, what could you tell myself and other editors that may make us change our stance? I am posibly willing to change if you give a good reason for me to believe that you will not violate WP:POINT et al again. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 08:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Naerii before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Neutral. Unless you tell us what the other accounts were, there is virtually no chance of this RfA passing. Please either reveal your previous accounts or withdraw nom.Balloonman (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    They are linked on my user page, I figured people would check my user page in the course of reviewing my contribs. I'll add links in the discussion section now. -- Naerii 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It may be helpful to explain the Arbcom incident raised below. Bad day, joke or otherwise = )...? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can anybody explain the blocking incident in more detail to me? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • During the Mantanmoreland drama in early March there was a discussion on ANI or AN (I don't remember which and I can't find it in the archives at this second) to community ban him. Many times in the discussion I saw respected admins refer with disdain to community consensus as "mob rule" and the like. I was having a bad day and that, combined with the apparent inaction of the ArbCom, pissed me off and I took the rather (ridiculously) rash action of nominating Wikipedia:Arbitration committee for deletion and moving Wikipedia:Wikipedians to Wikipedia:Mob Rule. I was discussing this with User:Ryan Postlethwaite when a block notice popped up from User:AGK indicating that I had been blocked indefinitely. You can see the ensuing discussions linked in my response to Question 3. -- Naerii 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can understand frustration and overreactions. My concern just lies with whether something dramatic like that happening again. I hope you can understand my concern. Thank you for the clarification though. I would just give another RfA nomination some more time so that most editor's reservations have dissipated. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I'm going to write a few FAs when college is over for the summer and see how things go :) -- Naerii 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I've seen you around aplenty, and your comments always appear insightful and helpful, and sometimes blunt : ), which can be good. The FA thing is a good idea. In fact, it's something I'll be getting back into once Graduate School has slowed down abit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was going to wait until Balloonman responded to my comment on his talk page, but if you give me a few mins I'll write up what happened. -- Naerii 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Strong support Brilliant editor. --82.31.0.126 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    IPs can't !vote. Malinaccier (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there an unwritten rule that, while we don't block users as punishments, it's okay to fail their RFAs as such? I wonder how long it is supposed to take a user to learn a lesson (say, do not nominate ARBCOM for deletion). I don't think any of the other great edifices of wiki-bureaucracy have been nominated since that incident. Perhaps the lesson has been learned. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You're overthinking it. Opposing because of the arbcom thing isn't a punishment. We're just saying that it has been too soon since it happened, and we think that there isn't sufficient re-assurance that it won't happen again. Contrary to what you may think, not every oppose in in bad faith.--KojiDude (Contributions) 01:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. I remember Naerii from her previous accounts, which are listed above. From my observations of her, she is someone who I think is unlikely to be abusive. I can support this request. Acalamari 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Extremely strong support - anyone who lists ArbCom for deletion should not only become a sysop, but a 'crat, checkuser and oversighter as well. Monobi (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Not forgetting arbitrator as well. 82.31.0.126 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    ...uh? Monobi (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think he sort of missed the point there. -- Naerii 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    The irony would be delicious though. 82.31.0.126 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak support. I'd hope Naerii has learnt from experience and can close the tab and make a coffee, and take it gently. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. From what I've seen, this user's primary "fault" has been frustration at the double standards administrators enjoy. (Perhaps there are other things I've not seen, but this seems clear to fail so this support is primarily intended to note that this frustration is hardly unreasonable.) Frankly, I want to see more users like this who don't believe admins and arbitrators should be treated as wikigods. We promoted the user who MFD'd RFA, so I can't see how doing the same for ArbCom is a disqualification. --JayHenry (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    ^demon was a sysop prior to his MFD of RFA. And given the low ~60% reconfirmation RFA, "we" didn't promote him, but rather, the bureaucrat that closed it decieded to based on prior adminship history. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per Acalamari, Monobi, Dan Beale-Cocks and JayHenry. EJF (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. I thought you didn't want to be one? (Maybe that's the whole point.) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per JayHenry. Also, drama is not necessarily a bad thing. Quietly and passively accepting the pronouncements of those in authority, in order to ingratiate oneself and become an admin, would be a bad thing. WaltonOne 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support, because I don't believe one leak should sink a ship. I think Naerii is a quality contributer and 99/100 times makes thoughtful decisions - my personal requirements for adminship aren't perfection. He knows policy and he knows when they should be invoked. Also, support because Naerii is shrewdly setting up this RfA, knowing it will fail - but all the opposers will get the ArbCom thing out of their systems, and he can come back in 3-4 months and pass with flying colors. It's just how this game is played nowadays. Tan | 39 00:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support — MFDing the Arbitrary Committee is perhaps the one thing that can outweigh a self-nom. The Arbitrary Committee has got to go. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but an mfd is obviously not going to get it done, and is therefore just needless disruption. - Bobet 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's the Arbitrary Committee itself that is disruptive. The MFD was just a remedy for the disruption. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support, don't see any problems beyond the obvious, which really seems to be blown out of proportion. Says she'll work on AIV, and I didn't see any reports that were without merit (or didn't lead to a block). And I'm sure she'd do a good job at closing afds, given pretty much all of her edits there were well-thought-out and reasoned (my only problem was with this one, but I'm sure she'll get back on that after being reminded of it). - Bobet 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Heh, thanks for the reminder. -- Naerii 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support, obviously a controversial candidate, but a willingness to admit that they were wrong and to take punishment on the chin if justified (per Q4) is impressive. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC).
  12. Support, The user has a very good contribution history to mainspace. The user is sensitive to the problems of BLPs and we need more admins like this. I have no problem with an MFD of arbcom from a procedural point of view, I would probably !vote keep to such an MFD but it doesn't break any rule of wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support per no memorable negative interactions and appears to contribute to mainspace constructively. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support People are allowed to make mistakes. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - good editor, would be a good admin in my book! - Privatemusings (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support Epbr123 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support TimBuck2 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose It's only two months since you MFD'd Arbcom for god's sake. — iridescent 20:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree more. Naerii should of MfD'd it yesterday so I could of slapped "Delete" on it. Monobi (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You've retired twice in the past 6 months. Been involved in an arbcom case---my guess based upon the above nomination is that you disagreed with their verdict which is why you nom'd it for deletion? But that's besides the point, I want to see more stability and continuous activity from potential admins. The fact that you quit wikipedia twice---and then came back under new accounts---is somewhat bothersome.Balloonman (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    What happened to Wikipedia:Right to vanish!?--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    You have the right to vanish... but if you invoke that right, then you can't appeal to your edit history from your previous account to make up for deficiencies in your current record. You have to be judged solely based upon the current account---plus, once you announce a previous account, then you have opened the door to the previous record. The right to vanish is a two way sword---but that isn't what Naerii was looking for (as apparently she had the pages on her mainpage.)Balloonman (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have not invoked any such right. -- Naerii 21:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per the above. Spartaz Humbug! 20:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose. zOMG DRAHMAZ. Sorry, but to soon after all the drama. Malinaccier (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    zOMG how dare you?! But okay, fair enough. -- Naerii 21:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I really do like your editing, but I just can't support with everything. Malinaccier (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose You have a lack of stability and the fact that you've been dealing with alternate accounts because you've retired from the Wikipedia twice in the past 6 months is not a good thing. You answers to all the questions have me concerned, especially Q1, which pretty much says that you are going to be a deletionist and that you would not deal with the other areas that an administrator has to deal with. Also, because of how short your answers to the questions are, that might mean that you might not take the time to review each page before you delete it, which means that you might not use the tools to the fullest. I am, sadly, unable to support this nomination at this time. Good luck in the future! Razorflame 20:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Never. Immaturity is one thing, but MFD'ing Arbcom, well, thats a new level of siliness. Qst (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Of course not. Many people view ArbCom as unneeded. Monobi (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    So, um, what do you intend to have as the final DR step? Cos you know, ANI discussions and RfCs don't always cut it, and neither does anarchy. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    We could try resolving things by popular majority vote. WaltonOne 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    "and neither does anarchy." {{fact}} —Dark talk 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    In an ideal Wikipedia, that'd work, Walton. DarkFalls, I suppose you can give it a try if you really want. I haven't seen that much anarchy around here yet, and incidentally the place still works. That's the basis for my argument. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Sorry. A good editor, but being blocked only a month and a half ago shows that it's not time yet. Please see my admin criteria page for furhter information. Useight (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Iridescent and Balloonman.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per most of the above, but primarily the WP:MFD Arbcom debacle. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Even if I can overlook everything else, the fact that you have been blocked less than three months ago automatically earns a 'no' from me. Trusilver 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - per the above concerns, and my criteria. --Chetblong (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - I'm just too worried about this candidate. The wikipedia weathermen are forecasting a snowfall.--Bedford 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    On the contrary, it was quite sunny here today ;) -- Naerii 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Iridescent. It's too soon since the WP:MFD Arbcom incident. The candidate will need to regain the community's trust. Majoreditor (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Unfortunate Oppose I don't like opposing unless there is truly a good reason, but I see the emotional reaction as a huge warning signal. At this point, I'd suggest the candidate to give it some time and come back in half a year or so. I'll be happy to forget about this unfortunate incident then. --Liempt (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for the reasons above - the block's too recent, and edit summary usage could be better. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Strong oppose - This particularly worries me. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 23:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Serious drama regarding the ArbCom MFD and multiple accounts. Also, I've seen this editor !voting multiple times during RfAs with the Kurt-esque "power hunger" excuse; I can't condone that, especially since this is a self-nom. GlassCobra 00:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, the second part of your oppose has left me completely nonplussed. Could you point out some RfAs where you feel I've opposed based on power hunger? -- Naerii 00:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Apologies, Naerii, I was incorrect; you did agree with Kurt on TenPoundHammer's latest RfA, but so did a few others (though this makes it no more valid). I thought I had seen you oppose self-noms before, but I must have been incorrect. I will strike that part of my oppose, though I hope you understand that I do not feel I can change my !vote here. GlassCobra 02:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't expecting you to change your mind :) -- Naerii 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    What is this constant harping on how people decide to cast their !vote at RfA as a viable reason for an oppose. This is RfA, not RfB. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. I considered supporting, for being bold, but there is a point where boldness goes too far, and I do think you crossed that line last march. Sorry. Spinach Dip 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - the MfD of ArbCom is a bit too much drama for my tastes. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That particular bit of drama lasted all of six minutes. You'll get more than that on a random episode of Sesame Street. - Bobet 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Attempting to cause drama then. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Far too much drama and other issues. There's already more than enough of it as it is. Jmlk17 02:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Useight above. Sorry. Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 03:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. I'm sorry, but your MFD of the ArbCom... I mean, its fair enough to try and move things towards the dismantling of what you view as a useless body, but to MFD it was just POINTy. Some would argue we need more POINTy admins to inject some common sense, but this was just a disruptive, pointless and time-wasting gesture. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose as per Useight, you haven't given it enough time Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose - No, too much drama. Tiptoety talk 04:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  26. My apologies for doing this, but oftentimes when I see this editor participating in discussions, his or her comments oftentimes add to the drama aspect of the encyclopedia. This editor has left me the impression that he lacks the maturity to be am administrator, and therefore I must oppose. That being said, I do value his contributions very much, and hope he doesn't get discouraged by this. :) Valtoras (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I can understand what it's like to be frustrated. (Ask me about Highway 33 sometime, as an example.) However, I'm concerned about Naerii's response to stressful situations. MFDing ArbCom and moving Wikipedia:Wikipedians to Wikipedia:Mob rule are easily undone, as are other user actions, but misusing admin tools in a moment of frustration could really cause problems that go beyond user-level frustrations. I'd like to see some evidence that she's learned from this problem and that she can get through future frustrating situations without reacting negatively. Being an admin pretty much guarantees that you'll have to deal with difficult situations and difficult people. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  28. Not enough experience in administrator related areas, what I see as incivility, MFD of ArbCom et al. I would not consider supporting for at least another 9 months or so. Rudget (Help?) 10:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - based on their editing history to date, one must assume they will end up being desysopped, if they were permitted to pass this RfA, so the sensible thing to do is ensure this RfA doesn't pass, thus bypassing the needless drama that would result in the desysopping. Nick (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Weak oppose I fine Naerii to often be thoughtfull and intelligent, presenting good challenges of real value to opinions of others - a good thing to move the project forward. I also find excellent contributions in other areas. However, the question I must ask is - do I trust an editor, who acknowledges their block of March this year was down in part to linking to attack sites, with a page protection button? No. I'm afraid I don't at this time. Also, per Nick above. Pedro :  Chat  13:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. Weak oppose - you have made some good contributions, and some not so good contributions. I think this nom is too soon after the WP:MFD Arbcom incident, and I think you need to do some work to prove that you can be trusted with the tools in the future. I wish you the best of luck, but I advise you to keep your head in future. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  32. Oppose - A little more time and a little less drama; try again in a few months and I'll be more open to supporting you. --CapitalR (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Great user, but the ArbCom thing worries me. I don't like to pileon so its a neutral from me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral -- pending answers to mine and Balloonman's questions...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - some difficulties noted above which make it difficult to see the user as a net positive currently. However I do see the beginnings of some article development and certainly some concerted action in this area over the next few months would be beneficial. A couple of successful Good Articles will highlight the user's ability to engage in collaboration and negotiation and make it easy for folks like us here to see that it is possible. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Blocked less than 2 months ago. Won't oppose because I don't like to pileon. --SharkfaceT/C 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per WBOSITG. Sceptre (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Nope, I have to admit it, you've lost me there. -- Naerii 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    "Great user, but the ArbCom thing worries me". Sceptre (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oh I see, it's a user.. haha, my bad, I thought you were referencing another obscure acronym x.x -- Naerii 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral If it hadn't been for the lack of judgement... --Rodhullandemu 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Other than the arbcom incident, I'd support, but with this I cannot. Perhaps in about 3-6 moths when this cools down. Don't worry, I overract a lot too. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 03:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Gut feeling says not right now. Arbcom has nothing to do with it, that needs fixing anyways. Hope this doesn't snow on you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Having been blocked several months ago, i dont think youre ready. A bit more experience and a slightly harder shell will do a world of good. Good contribs though. Five Years 07:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Prank nomination. Dorftrottel (troll) 08:40, May 4, 2008
    Surprisingly, I am starting to agree... nom should be withdrawn to prove otherwise.Balloonman (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, well if we've got to the point where I have to withdraw to dispel other people's assumptions of bad faith.. please feel free. -- Naerii 15:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Neutral, per WBOSITG and Sharface217. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (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.