Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scott5114 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Scott5114

Voice your opinion (talk page) (61/0/3); Scheduled to end 5:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Scott5114 (talk · contribs) - I stumbled across Scott5114 back in November during his first RfA. During that RfA I was brutal towards him. His answers to the questions were uninspiring and failed to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of Wikipolicy. I was particularly disappointed that he didn't appear to research the answer to some questions, particularly one related to WP:BLP, where he was provided with the relevant link. His first RfA failed largely because of the arguments that I made against it.

I come before you today to state that I was wrong in my initial assessment of Scott5114.

I started to question my appraisal of him during the last RfA. While he failed to show the technical expertise necessary to become an admin he clearly demonstrated the soft skills required. He kept a level head despite some harsh criticism. Then there were the comments of his fellow wikipedians who work with him on a regular basis coming to his aid. Those comments proved to me that Scott was the type of person that we need for admin, but it was his technical knowledge that I questioned. Too that end myself and several other people suggested Admin Coaching. I offered to coach him... I didn't really expect him to accept the offer because of how critical I was during his first RfA, but those soft skills convinced me that he just might deserve the tools after all. He accepted my offer.

I asked him a number of policy related questions during the Coaching and he gave excellent well thought out responses. He demonstrated that he had the technical knowledge to look up things when he didn't know the answer. In short, he convinced me that my opposition to his first RfA was in err. The only reason why I didn't re-nominate him immediately was because I felt that he needed some more exposure elsewhere and the notion that one should wait 3 months or so before a second RfA. I asked him to participate in more XfD's---as those are always high on people's list for potential admins. I monitored his posts, and his rationales were spot on (as were his contributions elsewhere.) I also asked him to get some exposure outside of his comfort zone (eg articles other than roads and highways)---which he did.

Over the past two months, WikiProject USRD has been involved in an arbcom case involving an editor who was alleged to be disruptive. In accepting the case, the Arb Committee did so with the reasoning, "All three RfCs focused not just on NE2's behavior, but also on perceived problems with USRD's interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia." I watched the case very closely due to Scott's involvement with the project. At first, I was concerned that this comment might hurt Scott's chances of becoming an Admin. Having watched the case unfold, I realized that the case didn't really involve Scott. Scott's involvment throughtout the case was that of bridgebuilder/mediator. Irnoically, I actually became somewhat involved with this case presenting my own concerns about the project and debating Scott's co-nominator Rschen7754 as to the role of Wikiprojects. While Rschen and I have drastically different views on Wikipedia, we both believe that Scott would be an excellent admin.

I believe that Scott has all of the tools to make an excellent Admin and now is time to rectify an error that we made in November.Balloonman (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am here to co-nominate Scott5114. Scott has been an established user since 2005 and has been beneficial at USRD and in other areas. He has contributed to Kansas Turnpike, a FA, as well as a few GA's and the entire OKSH. In addition to this, he maintains professional courtesy on IRC and on Wiki (even better than me at times.) He has the knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines / policies that is necessary to become an administrator. In my opinion, his adminship is long overdue because of his willingness to contribute, his diligence, civility, and willingness to help out. Therefore, I heartily endorse this candidate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you! I accept your nominations. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:38, 8 March 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: My chief concern as an admin would be to work on clearing out the administrative backlogs. I would probably focus most on keeping speedy deletion...well...speedy. Keeping tabs on the categories containing images that have been copied to Commons would also be something I'd try to do.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: During my time here, I've gotten one article to Featured Article status: Kansas Turnpike, which required about a year's worth of work, with a lot of help from User:SPUI. Also, I've gotten Oklahoma State Highway 9 and Oklahoma State Highway 74 to GA status, and have two one more waiting in the queue. One of those is Chickasaw Turnpike, which I'm especially happy with, and am hoping to make my second FA in the future. Since joining Wikipedia, I've created about 140 articles from scratch, and I'm pretty happy with how a lot of those are shaping up. In addition, I've gotten around 30 articles to B-Class.
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: Working on road articles, as I often do, isn't easy; for some reason, it seems that subject tends to attract many strongly-willed editors. This can lead to a lot of conflict within the WikiProject. I avoid provocative behavior, and I always try to facilitate discussion and keep things from falling into a shoutfest. As an admin, I hope to deal with conflicts in much the same way, through keeping a cool head and encouraging discussion to the greatest extent feasible.

Optional questions from Wisdom89

5. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A- Well, the first thing to do is get it confirmed through WP:RFCU to make sure that they are, indeed, using sockpuppets. If it comes back positive, the next thing to do is block the alternate accounts. I would then go to WP:ANI to seek input on whether to block the main account. While administrators have may block the main account at their discretion per WP:SOCK#Blocking, in this specific case of a prolific user with a positive history, I would work to ensure that community is happy with blocking the user.
6. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A- I would most likely allow the block to stand, and offer a statement in the ArbCom case. I would try one last time to reach the unresponsive user through email. Perhaps having been blocked would make them more willing to talk. If ArbCom rejected the case, I would encourage the users to use the Mediation Cabal to help work out their dispute; the U.S. Roads project that I am involved with has been in a few disputes, and MedCab has proven helpful to resolving disputes in the past, so I would recommend trying it.
7. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-
8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A- Indefinite blocks are only permitted in cases of severe disruption or policy breaches. The canonical example of this is cases where it's obvious that the user is using their account only for vandalism and has no intent of stopping and editing productively. Since undisputed indefinite blocks essentially become a ban, they should be given out carefully.
9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A- I would probably lean towards "keep" and "no consensus", respectively. In borderline cases (in any AFD), defaulting to keep permits the article to be improved, and if no considerable improvement has taken place since the AFD, it can be nominated for deletion again at any time. In other words, "better safe than sorry". Of course, there may be other things to consider depending on the specific case.
10 What's the difference between a ban and a block?
A A block is keeping a user from editing, usually temporarily, through technical means. A ban, on the other hand, formally revokes any and all editing privileges from the user, either temporarily or indefinitely. A user can be banned from the whole project, a topic area, or even individual articles. A banned user is often blocked in order to enforce the ban, and any edits shown to be made by a banned user can be reverted on-sight, regardless of the merit of the edits themselves.
Optional questions from Malinaccier (talk)
11. What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
A. A POV fork is when an article is split to emphasize a particular point of view. POV forks aren't acceptable, and generally need to be dealt with through AFD. Sometimes, though, another article needs to be spun off from the main article anyway — in that case, the forked article needs to be worked on in order to comply with the core policy of WP:NPOV.
12. List 3 ways to avoid having a biased POV, and please explain each.
A.
13. When should a page be SALTed? Why?
A. Pages should be salted (or protected from recreation) when the same article has been recreated and (properly) deleted many times. Recreating an article multiple times is disruptive, because it wastes administrators' time to have to delete the same thing over and over again. Salting prevents that from happening.
14. Can you provide a specific diff where you helped a user.
A. [1] - this user had nominated a few of his own images for deletion at IFD. I let him know about the speedy criteria for requesting deletion of your own content. Hopefully that'll save him some time in the future.

Questions from Majorly

15. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. Not really.

16. Why do you think that?

A. Well, most of the situations outlined in these questions haven't ever arisen in my editing history. That doesn't mean that they won't in the future, however, so being prepared for the possibility is important. Plus, it motivates me to look up some policies that I know the general spirit of but not the exact letter to confirm that my ideas are correct.

17. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. No, the only musical instrument I play is the trombone. Preventing conflicts of interest are important, but a violin player might be able to write more about the subject than a non-violin player. Therefore, they should be free to contribute, but of course, should take extra care in keeping their writing neutral.

Optional question from Keepscases

18. Do you feel that I PUT THE P IN WIKIPEDIA is an appropriate user name?

A. I'd say it's probably appropriate. It's not blatantly disruptive, and I doubt there's anyone who would actually think that before this user came along, we were all editing 'Wikiedia'...

Optional question from Ozgod taken from Wooyi

19. What is your stance on WP:BLP and how will you treat editors who insert poorly sourced information into biographical articles?

A. I knew BLP was going to come up eventually, seeing as how it was an issue in the last RfA. The reason we have the BLP policy in the first place is because having libelous content in Wikipedia articles on living people can have serious repercussions for its subject (not to say that libel is OK when directed towards a dead person, it's not, but living people require particular care). Poorly sourced, libelous content should be expediently removed. Users who insert BLP violations should be warned with the {{blp0}}/{{blp1}}/{{blp2}} tags (as appropriate) before being blocked, because they may not be aware of the policy. Editors that are knowingly editing in conflict with the policy should be blocked for disruption, however.
My last RfA had a question (Q4) about BLP, and was one of the major factors in users opposing. I now see I was wrong to advocate copying content to the talk page, and have 'learned my lesson', so to speak. However, in the case of content that is disputed as to whether it violates BLP, I would foster talk-page discussion after removing the contentious text.

Question from Seddon69

20. What do you feel should be done regarding inappropriate conduct from one user to/about another outside wikipedia? eg on IRC

A. Well, ArbCom says that they're in the process of drafting policies regarding IRC (at the resolution of the case of the same name), so hopefully they'll do something about it so I won't have to :) but in regards to your question, I think a lot of it has to do with the forum it takes place in. I'm not sure I can say much about inappropriate conduct on non-Wikipedia websites; I know there's been a lot of problems with Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica and other such sites, usually involving Daniel Brandt, but I never really was much interested in checking those out, so I'm afraid I'm unqualified to state my opinion on sites like that. As for IRC, it makes a big difference on if it's a Wikimedia O&O channel. If it's not affiliated with Wikimedia or Wikipedia in any way, unfortunately, there's not much you can do about it. On the other hand, the administration of Wikimedia-affiliated IRC channels have the responsibility to make and enforce a set of channel rules to maintain a level of decorum so outright incivility doesn't take place. Basically, I feel the rules on IRC can probably afford to be a bit more lax than on Wikipedia, seeing as it's an informal meeting place, but the general rule of "don't say anything you wouldn't say to them if they were in the channel" is probably a good rule of thumb and should be good enough to keep things from getting out of hand.


Question from Balloonman

21. Now that you've played 20 questions, what is the answer?
A: Assuming I'm not misunderstanding your question, 42.
Best answer yet!Balloonman (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Scott5114 Requests for adminship/Scott5114 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Scott5114 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Re question #8 answer. Undisputed indefinite blocks are not effectively bans. Indefinite blocks are not infinite blocks: they just have no set duration and have to be manually removed. In practice, indefinite blocks don't need to be given out that carefully: their effect, in some cases, is really to force the user to start communicating and to agree to accept WP policies, with the idea that the block will eventually be ended. Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support as co-nom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. support as conom---probably the first thing Rschen and I have agreed upon in 3 months!Balloonman (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - seems trustworthy. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Great candidate. Rudget (?) 09:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Really co-operative with the UKRD/USRD thing :) Will (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support: Trustworthy, and his silver mop is long overdue. seicer | talk | contribs 12:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support looks good. RC-0722 communicator/kills 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Looks like he would make a good admin, with 100% edit summary usage, and great experience, I don't see why not. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Looks OK. The nom statements are very persuasive. Dlohcierekim 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    Increase to Strong support after reading answers to questions. Dlohcierekim 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - Excellent answers to the questions. I was leaning toward support anyway, but this gave me the nudge. Good luck! Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support I worked with him during a GA review, and he did a good job. Excellent answers to the questions provided. miranda 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support, excellent answers. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - I have no concerns. Xenon54 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support Per the superb answers to Majorly's SURREAL questions. Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support MBisanz talk 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. Edit history: Very strong - Edit summaries: 100% since February 2006 - Warnings: None found - Blocks: None - Primary questions: No problems - Extra questions (4 - 19): No problems -- Scott5114 appears to be a trustworthy candidate. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support I feel confident in supporting after the answer to the question I posed. --Ozgod (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support One of the best nominations I have seen. Good introduction by the nominator, good answers to the question and well established and trustable candidate. My full support, good luck! Poeloq (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. Looks like a well-qualified user to me. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Hard-working editor. - Darwinek (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Per above. Good answers to questions. NHRHS2010 12:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support. After reviewing the candidate's contributions and the opening statement, I see no obvious reason to oppose. I'm confident Scott will do a good job as an administrator. AGK (contact) 13:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support While admins are responsible to the community, I see no problem with one that appears to have a specific project interest. Tools are provided on the basis of trust, not need, but a sysop with specialist subject knowledge means the requirement for the intervention of a outside admin is diminished. Appears unlikely to abuse the tools, so yup!. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support- Per answers to questions. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support Looks like a good one. нмŵוτнτ 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support I had positive interactions with this user, and I trust him with the tools. PrestonH 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. No problem. --Abrech (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support I see no problem. A Raider Like Indiana (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - unless he plays his trombone at 3a.m. in the room above mine. Seriously, though, yes, a good candidate. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. This candidate seems OK. I see no reason to oppose. Majoreditor (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  34. Edit-conflicted Strong Support I opposed Scott's last RfA, noting that he did not seem to have a grasp of the policies as shown by his limited participation in admin-related areas and answers to the questions. I joined many others in suggesting that he try and branch out a bit more from road-related work--I am delighted to see that he has taken this to heart and pleased to see that his meta contributions are now of the same quality as his fine mainspace contributions. I've participated in a number of XfD discussions with him and have been impressed by the effective, policy-based rationales he presents in each. I am also impressed by this closure of an MfD discussion per WP:SNOW--while this call may have been easier than most, I think it shows a willingness to make tough calls that is valuable in an admin. These factors combined with his much-improved answers to the questions leave me with no doubts about offering my support. --jonny-mt 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support - I can't see any problems. Good Luck. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - Good answers to the questions, and a wide array of contributions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support No real concerns. NB That is a stonking nomination... very persuasive. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support - Looks like a strong editor. No reason to oppose. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support The coaching page pretty much said it all for me, and I even learned a few things. I haven't always agreed with Balloonman, but I certainly can't deny that his coaching was spot-on for training a responsible, knowledgeable administrator. I think Scott5114 will be a fine admin. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support, but I warn you to be careful in making rash decisions, and those actions you condone......see below discussion Dustitalk to me 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support, I don't have any concerns and I think you will make a great admin. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support: After arguments in my talk page I changed a my vote:) Paweł Alden or my talk page 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    *grin* I wouldn't really call asking your for clarification on your vote as 'arguments' :-) Balloonman (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support Working with him at USRD - I've found that he has been great to work with - and he has been patient with his efforts (even under pressure) and has stuck with the goal. I'll let the experience and the above answers decide this. Give the man a mop!  — master sonT - C 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Ready for the mop. --Sharkface217 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support. Ready, willing, and able. MrPrada (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  46. ok. — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support again as in his 1st RfA. Still a great editor, who meets all my standards, and his answers are much stronger now. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support. User seems to have learned from prior experience, exhibited civility on the sample of user talk edits that I checked, and appears cognizant of the proper policies and guidelines. I am reasonably comfortable that the user will exercise good judgment on behalf of the project. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support per all above. Good luck! GlassCobra 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support per above (everything that can be said has been said) and per my comments on his previous RFA. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support I've run into this editor at MfD and he seems to have good sense. The answers are fine though a bit brief, or maybe just concise.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support the glowing nom is persuasive, and the candidate appears ready. --MPerel 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support I just took a look at his previous RFA and I think that sense that he has learned a lot and I think that he deserves to be an admin. Mifter (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support - see my neutral comments --Camaeron (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  55. Good user. Acalamari 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  56. Strong-to the point of dying Support-Scott, you're the one deserving of these tools. Hope for good luck.Mitch32contribs 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support Good strong editor. Wikiyuvraj (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  58. +1. --Irpen 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support I see no problems. Timmeh! 02:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  61. Pile on support - All looks fine here. Net positive. Tiptoety talk 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose

Comments here in response to this leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Admittedly, the nominator of this RfA did much worse, but Scott's condoning, and the "it's like that" comment especially, are not what I like to see. I'll try to not mention how long it took me to close that discussion, but after doing so, to have this user (and, admittedly, several others) whine about my work and about the project in general just isn't on. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DHMO, as somebody who is not overly acquainted with Commons matters, being a non-regular, I don't follow your concerns: if you've got a second, could you elaborate/clarify? Obviously, it must be of a matter of sufficient seriousness as to spur you into opposition, and I'd very much like to factor your thoughts into my decision regarding support or opposition of this request—but I'd like to be 100% clear before I do so :) AGK (contact) 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a citation or a link so that we can judge upon that? seicer | talk | contribs 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, my major issue here isn't so much the deletion request. As I said, Scott didn't make it. My issue is the comment "Commons is like that for some incomprehensible reason." - This, a standalone aggressive comment, contributes to the us vs. them attitude that's already present in much of the Wiki. I understand others not sharing my opinion on this, but being a Commons regular and someone with strong feelings about that project, that comment really got my goat. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope you didn't interpret that as a slight against you or any Commons administrator. I wasn't intending that to be an aggressive remark. I do respect Commons as a project and, indeed, quite like the concept of a central media repository. There are just some aspects of Commons policy (like their policies on superseded images) that I find kind of counter-intuitive. My comment was more meant to be read as a "yeah, that seems to be the way things work over there, much like you, I don't really understand/agree with it." "Incomprehensible" was a bit strong of a word to use. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've withdrawn my oppose; as I said, you weren't the major "culprit" (for lack of a better word) there. But I hope you understand why I can't bring myself to support this. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::::: Oppose Paweł Alden or my talk page 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
Neutral - Would like to support his user, but judging by the minimalist answers I just can't see that this user has put time and thought into their Rfa. There is no excuse for this kind of minimalist Rfa, one has all the time in the world after all! Sorry --Camaeron (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Changing to support. Generally I prefer longer answers but this user's good work has convinced me to "overloo" this personal requirement..just this time... Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I do have to point out that this candidate put more time and thought into their RfA than most---he went through Admin Coaching, which is more than most people. And a quick look at his coaching page will show that it wasn't just a spur the moment thing.Balloonman (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Gut feeling, and per Camaeron. SpencerT♦C 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I question some of his \ her answers. It is not clear why he \ she wants to be an admin. If he \ she can clearly state why, I change my view to support. I fear if this is not done this user will be an admin who acts first and may or may not think second - sorry if this sounds negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Per Camaeron and I'm just not sure, I can't support unless I'm 100% sure that it's the right thing to do, sorry. Harland1 (t/c) 14:42, 10 March 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.