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

Infrangible[edit]

Final (22/16/9); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (banana) 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infrangible (talk · contribs) - Hi everybody, I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006. After realizing I've racked up in excess of 3000 edits, it seemed like a good time to float an RfA. My motivation is to take my involvement to the next level. Wikipedia to me is everything that's good about the Internet: collaboration, information, and the best of humanity. In my real life I am a professional and have had a good bit of experience working with others. One of the lessons I take with me is dealing with those with different opinions. There are a vast diversity of perspectives in this world, and a lot of us are convinced that our outlook is the single correct one. When I look on myself and others as small pieces of a great puzzle, I realize that my judgement is just as correct, and just as flawed as everyone else's. This, in my mind, makes consensus the most valuable feature of Wikipedia. It is in this, with a little apprehension, that I now trust my fate. I thank you in advance for your involvement in this discussion, and whatever the outcome, I look forward to working constructively with each of you on the project. ~ Infrangible 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 imagine mainly XFD backlog stuff. CSD backlogs. Responding to requests for admin-level help. I am sure there are ways I could make myself useful that I am not even yet aware of. I intend to continue growing as a Wikipedian, and may in time be involved in tasks that I don't currently see myself doing.
I think I should have been more clear. By Admin level help, I meant helping users who need admin level help: "Hey Infrangible, I created page User:XYZ/test and I want to delete it, can you help me?" There is much I don't know and it takes a great deal of courage to admit that, but I think I meant this more as an open show of humility rather than as a bumpkin who has no idea what an admin does. By involving myself in tasks I don't currently see myself doing, I was specifically referring to blocking users. It seems like a very harsh response. I tend to favor activities that add rather than ones that take away. I would need to participate in cases where I felt it was clearly warranted. Do I need the tools? No. No more than a janitor needs to be employed in their vocation. Adminship is similarly a dirty, thankless, often monotonous job, but I see it as a way I can add constructively to Wikipedia above what I am doing now. I am in the "no big deal" camp on the topic of adminship. ~ Infrangible 11:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created a few modest articles as can be seen on my user page. At the end of a long day, I find work such as going through backlogs rewarding. I surprise myself at my ability to complete a large number of such edits in a short span of time. It is somehow relaxing and restorative for my brain.
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: Certainly. I like to think I have matured beyond it, but there have been times where I felt anger and frustration at another user. It is times like that I need to step back and realize none of us are perfect, and exhibiting grace and patience can help others to grow not only as Wikpedians, but as human beings. We are all learning every day of our lives and we are all at different levels of personal development. Speaking with kindness to someone you disagree with is more effective than sarcasm or outright hostility. Then there are times you have to walk away. You can't win them all. You just need to be Ok with losing sometimes even if you are convinced you are right. Marriage taught me that. ;)

Optional question from T Rex | talk

4. How would you deal with a blatant POV pusher and what would you do if they insisted that you were the troll instead of them?
A: This puts me in the middle of a conflict. I might refer the matter for arbitration. I don't know that a block would be appropriate, particularly when it becomes personal. ~ Infrangible 10:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from SilkTork

5 Can you think of any situation(s) where an admin shouldn't be allowed to delete an article?
A: Yes. Certainly where an admin either nominates or contributes in a discussion for an XfD. But also when there is the slightest personal conflict of interest, I think the admin should recuse themselves. For example, if I had a prejudice against Ferrets, I should stay away from articles that deal with that topic. There is little to ensure an admin does this, but we have checks in place such as DRV. There is also usually nothing preventing someone from recreating the article. If you look at my record in Afds, I may be more likely to leave a comment, rather than a suggestion to Delete. ~ Infrangible 10:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. 2-part auestion from Carlossuarez46
You have indicated that you'd like to help out in closing Xfd's, how would you determine whether consensus has been achived? And under what circumstances, if any, should !votes be discounted or ignored?
A: WP:DGFA says that consensus can not overrule exclusion policies such as WP:V. If bad faith is suspected, I would tend to err on the side of keep. To me, I belive consensus should rule in all other cases. By consensus, I would look for a supermajority with a participation in excess of 3 comments. ~ Infrangible 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by DarkFalls (Strictly optional, if you feel uncomfortable just don't answer.)

7. Can you identify the problems, if any, with these images. 1 2 3


Important question from PrestonH (talk · contribs).

8. Can you name the steps into creating a Wikipedia policy?
9. What do you think is the most important policy/guideline in Wikipedia?


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Moral Support - everybody has their merits as an editor, and you appear to have many. Please do not let this dishearten you. I look forward to seeing a future RFA from you. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Looks good, no problems here. Majorly (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 09:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Onnaghar tl | co | @ 11:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support Your answers to those in opposition are excellent. Your replies to the optional questions are also excellent - I particularly like the fact that you would not use admin tools in personal situations. Historical continuous comments at WP:AFD are great. My support is weakened by the substantial number of welcome templates that you went through a period of applying as it does look a bit like helping edit count (sorry, that's just my opinion). In addition your original answer to Q1 though honest was rather weak. My biggest concern is this on your talk page. You can't just take a picture of an album cover and upload it as free use and "be okay", so your advice to the IP was inaccurate. However on balance I see a lot of good here so if your are succesful please read up on image policies! Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I feel that this user would unlikely abuse admin tools which would be given to him. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. There's certainly nothing in the contribution history that gives me pause. I've seen this user multiple times and interacted with them on occasion and they have always been positive interactions. Infrangible is friendly, good-humored and helpful. I'll support. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support everything looks fine. Melsaran 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've seen Infrangible around a lot. Nothing wrong with this user. Acalamari 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Per Majorly. ~ Wikihermit 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support T Rex | talk 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support The issues raised for opposing are important, but not unlearnable, and certainly no reason to keep him out of our party. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good Editior. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Uh, since when was adminship an exclusive party? I thought y'all were just janitors? VanTucky (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the evil cabal, which doesn't exist. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe it's a party for janitors. That sounds fun. VanTucky (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment So basically what you're saying is that people should get adminship before they know how to use it responsibly? It can be learned, of course, so why would we promote him before he's ready? --Lucid 13:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, Lucid, he is ready. Just not to your high standards. Majorly (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, how is not having any edits at all to the things he says he is going to be working on make him ready for the mop? My standards aren't high at all, but when the nominee doesn't show any real experience in what he wants to help with, in addition to encouraging breaking the rules, and having poor communication, I simply can't support them. I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect, I do expect people to know enough to actually perform their tasks, and be trustworthy enough to not abuse the mop. Given what they said to that IP, how can we be sure they wouldn't decline to delete a copyright violation so that a friend of theirs could use it on their user page? --Lucid 14:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had 2 (yes, 2) edits to the requests for protection page, and it was an area I specified in particularly working. I guess that makes me a dreadful admin. For your information, he has plenty of AfDs, so you saying he has no edits at all to the said areas is completely false. Anyway, most of the time, it's called having common sense. I believe the candidate has this, which is so much better than being a process wonk. Number of edits in areas != knowledge of them. Majorly (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's not possible to know about things without doing them, but things like AIV and ANI that frequently involve banning users involve knowing what that entails, and what is and isn't acceptable. I never said he has no edits to any of the areas he said he would work in, far as I can see. I really don't see how maliciously breaking copyright law, in defiance of multiple policies, is "common sense"-- the thought of an admin breaking rules where they find it convenient is downright scary. As I've already gone over, they have done multiple things that makes me either think they aren't familiar with process, or don't care about it. They still haven't explained why they decided to sugar coat Q3-- and that takes us back to concerns over their ability to communicate and explain their actions. --Lucid 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. A great user who is well deserving of the admin tools. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Great user civil with good track.Harlowraman 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, trustworthy and won't misuse the tool. @pple 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support for his sense of humor in AfD debates and on talk pages. What good is faith, hope and charity, without joy? Infrangible adds a hint of levity to many discussions, but especially at WP:AFD, which is sometimes necessary. Win or lose, he's a mensch, a good trait to have as a sysop. Bearian 17:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Moral support; his heart is in the right place. — Coren (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support—looks good. — Deckiller 02:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nothing moral about supporting, unless you're a fence sitter. I'm not a fence sitter, and I support. Giggy Talk 02:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. ugen64 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 09:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Per Croat Canuck. Hiberniantears 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support- From what I have seen adminship would be an excellent choice concerning this editor. Full support! Deliciously Saucy 11:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Of course. After reading through the users' answers and contribs I think he deserves the mop. Plus, it takes a lot of courage for one to nominate oneself. ScarianTalk 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per a lack of acceptable articulation in answers to questions here, and their relation to your contrib history. In describing the sysop tasks you see yourself performing, you were not only vague, but you said you would see yourself "responding to requests for admin-level help", which I take to mean AIV and ANI. While your work with other administrative type tasks has been commendable, I find good reason here to be apprehensive with trusting you to resolve disputes when you have only 500 or so talk edits out of a 3000+ total count. I also found your lack of clear examples of conflicts troubling (if you can't name any specific examples of successfully resolved conflicts, then you shouldn't be given the tools). In other words, I don't see enough evidence of your capacity to interact with other users in a manner befitting a sysop and their duties. VanTucky (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This may alienate a great many vandal fighters, but I think my efforts will likely center around other areas. It takes a certain character to do that kind of work, and my personality is better suited to the boring, monotous tasks that no one else wants to do. I am keeping an open mind though, so that explains my comment about growing as a Wikipedian. I appreciate your comments, sometimes you can learn more from those who disagree with you than from your advocates. ~ Infrangible 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose If you aren't aware of ways you can help, you don't need the mop, sorry. In addition, you said you intend to respond to requests for admin level help, which I'll assume means ANI and AIV, but I don't see that you have any edits to either location. Your answer to question three honestly seems like you're trying to dodge the question and pretty it up, and there's nothing pretty about conflicts. We've all heard the "well just be nice and realize you can be wrong..." speech, you don't talk about any actual conflicts you've been in or how you actually handle them. This leads me to believe that either A- you're afraid if we knew about some of the conflicts you've been in, we wouldn't vote for you, B- haven't been in a serious conflict, and don't want to reveal it, or C- vague in your communication, and none of those are qualities I want to see in an admin. --Lucid 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You got me there. I'm not much of a charmer, but I should point out that a great many tyrants have ascended to power by knowing the exact words to make people at ease. I think maybe what's putting you off is the fact that I am not trying too particularly hard here. I guess all I can ask is that you not hinge your decision so much on individual words and take a look at the body of my edits. As they say, actions speak louder than words and talk is cheap. Cheers. ~ Infrangible 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's got nothing to do with how hard you are or aren't trying (I personally agree with the 'don't care either way about adminship, it's a thankless job' stance to RFA, and support you there), and everything to do with the fact that your answers alone show you don't need the mop. Saying "requests for admin level help" is extremely vague, and shows you either don't have a clear understanding of what you will do, or you don't have a clear ability to communicate, which are both bad. Again, you don't have any edits to either location, which anyone running for admin should at least show they've been around a time or two. Your answer to three again seems like you're dodging the question, and my list of three reasons above still applies to that. You are either not ready to be an admin, do not have the communication skills required to be an admin, or some mix of the two. In addition, having apparently been in no conflicts is not a good thing for an admin. Seeing as you answered the fourth question, I'll also state that going straight from "disagreement of POV" to "Arbcom" (I'm assuming you mean arbcom, your meaning of 'arbitration' was again unclear due to poor communication) is a huge overreaction, and in 99% of cases a complete waste of time and red tape. Your expanded first question is again concerning-- you want to go straight into banning users even when you have no previous experience with it? That is a huge step, I can tell you right off that I've learned a helluva lot more by actually participating in AIV and ANI and the like than would be possible to teach in ANY book on the subject, let alone a simple policy page. You have shown numerous times that you don't know about the admin tasks you intend to help with, do not have much of an idea what you would be doing with the tools, and that your communication skills have exactly the type of ambiguity that leads to confusion which can damage the project or other editors, such as by unclear communication to a newcomer. You are just not ready for it. --Lucid 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain why you think that. You need to give a better reason! Politics rule 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't *need* to give a better reason just because we don't support his reasoning. I find that type of thinking very bad, but it's still a valid reason to oppose. The closing bureaucrat should take the reasoning behind his oppose into account when this RfA is closed. But, Kurt only needs to explain more if he feels he wants to or should. Cbrown1023 talk 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Cbrown1023 that I can't tell Kurt his opinion is incorrect, but I sincerely do think that doing so while there is an RfC on such behavior reflects on him poorly. –Animum 13:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, just give Kurt a break. Would it kill us? Cool Bluetalk to me 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made that comment because an admin put this on his talk page. "Seriously Kurt, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, keep doing that prima facie nonsense to all self-noms in WP:RFA, and I will block you. Jaranda wat's sup 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)" Politics rule 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't mean anything against you, Politics rule, I just meant that I personally think that this should taken elsewhere, even though it has elsewhere, such as at RfC and WT:RFA and WP:BN. I think Kurt's entitled to his own opinion, but I also confide in WP:POINT. Cool Bluetalk to me 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Pedro's diff (yes, I know he's supporting) It's okay for a user to be unfamiliar with some area of policy, but he should know well enough not to offer "advice" in that area. Pedro's diff was only two weeks ago, and I fear the incorrect information the editor might spread if, as a admin, people looked to him for advice. Xoloz 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on a second, I think there has been a misunderstanding. As I am sure you're aware this is a very contentious issue and I happen to fall on the side of "fair use". You have mistaken inexperience for a different interpretation of policy. I appreciate your input. thank you. ~ Infrangible 21:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Everyone is, I hope, on "the side of fair-use." I've never met a Wikipedian who didn't see some use for it, although there are different degrees of latitude. Personally, my view of "fair use" is more liberal than the Foundation's. My problem with your content has nothing to do with disliking fair use (in fact, I love it) -- it is that you failed to mention fair use at all, and you appeared to suggest to the questioner that he could claim a photo of the album cover as "his," without qualification. You needed to mention fair use to him. At best, your suggestion was extremely unclear; at worst, you were counseling him to lie (the album isn't his, you know, even when he takes the photo of the cover.) The strangeness of your reply to me deepens my concern regarding your comprehension of this area of policy. Xoloz 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An administrator that apparently suggests people break policies and laws just to get an album on their user page won't make very many people feel secure. One day it's saying "Oh, you can just say it's your own and no one will bug you", the next it's "Oh, you can just cite some random newspaper and put in your opinion and no one will bug you", knowingly abusing the system is a very slippery slope --Lucid 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I was set for a support before noticing that talk page comment. It very nearly pushed me Neutral, and I had a feeling when I identified it that it would be used as an oppose by others. My own comment of weak support is based on the many other positives I found, but I can very much understand why people are now opposing. I'm genuinely sorry if this adversley affects this RFA but I do believe this is a forum for discussion, and it would have been dishonest of me not to mention a concern just because my feelings where to offer unconditional support to the candidate. Sorry, and Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  07:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose I highly doubt that he will abuse the admin tools, but I will have to agree with Xolox. Politics rule 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very Weak Oppose per Xolox, although I don't think this user will abuse the tools. -Lemonflash(chat) 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sorry, I just don't think you're quite ready yet. A good person who will make a good administrator a couple of months down the track, I suspect. Daniel→♦ 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not enough solid evidence for me to comfortably support. Answers to questions are short and not really satisfactory, which gives the appearance of either lack of effort, willingness or knowledge. This is perhaps more to do with lack of experience than anything else. As with some others, I feel Infrangible is not quite ready. SilkTork 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose per your response to Xoloz. Please re-review the fair use policy. Apparent gaps in policy knowledge now shouldn't disqualify you from adminship in the future, and I think you have the temperament to be an admin, but advising the user to label the image as his own work is not just a different interpretation. With some more evidence to support a strong background in policy and guidelines, I'll happily support in the future. Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Xoloz is exactly right, "It's okay for a user to be unfamiliar with some area of policy, but he should know well enough not to offer advice in that area". An understanding of copyright basics is a near necessity for any administrator, through. I'm also concerned about Infrangible's depth of experience with the project in general. For example, they have 40 edits to talk pages, but the majority are merely additions of "inspirational thoughts" (example) or personal commentary on the article's subject. I would feel much better about supporting Infrangible in the future once there is a track record of collaboration and dispute resolution with other editors. ×Meegs 08:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. oppose, admins aren't janitors (no, no matter how many times you repeat it), they are judges, and i can't support anyone who does not recognise this. Kamryn · Talk 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kamryn my verdict hereby rules that you are wrong and admins shall remain janitors.--Húsönd 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So apart from the fact you're opposing because you disagree with the candidate, do believe he will actually misuse the tools in any way? Acalamari 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Misuse of administrator definition is that way. Giggy Talk 02:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Comments by Xoloz and Lucid have convinced me that waiting a few months and working in the areas that you want to do admin work in is a good idea. Captain panda 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - I was in "Neutral", but answer to Q6 pushed me to oppose. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose pending answer to my questions. His/her contributions are good, but his knowledge of policy is questionable until the questions are answered.--PrestonH 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Editor shows commitment and has many good contributions, but their lack of understanding of image policy and low talk page use suggest their experience is inadequate for adminship at this time. Espresso Addict 12:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - This user has been on wikipedia for sometime, but a whole bunch of your edits are welcome templates to IPs. Also, another bunch are spelling corrections. I'm not saying housekeeping work is crap, but I would to see some "article editing". Otherwise, this user participates in a lot of the Afds and I can't oppose on that. For now, neutral. --Hirohisat Talk 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please type out the whole word instead of stars, so we know if you are saying cunt or crap. It just gets kinda confusing. T Rex | talk 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, it's crap. Sorry 'bout that. --Hirohisat Talk 05:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I saw that earlier and thought it was cunt and I was like "thats pretty extreme for a neutral vote" (I think it was neutral). Anyways thanks for clarifying. T Rex | talk 05:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The answer to question one doesn't demonstrate any understanding of adminship - some research would be welcome. Answer two contains no diffs - are there any edits that you could offer to demonstrate your admin potential? Answer three - any diffs to demonstrate how you would cope with conflict? I don't see any evidence to make me swing this in to the 'support' column. (aeropagitica) 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A great user who would probably just need a coupla months of experience to work on some problem areas. Please don't lose heart over this. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per those above... An admin should not give advice that is in direct contrast with NFCC, but I feel it too harsh to oppose solely for that. --DarkFalls talk 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I am very close to supporting, but Xoloz raises a good point. I don't think every admin must be an AfD/editwar/noticeboard/whatever expert, and I judge Kamryn'c remark to be patently ludicrous, but I agree that admins should not ever overstate their competence. Looking forward to supporting you next time. Cool Hand Luke 09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral on the basis of the error highlighted by Xoloz and Pedro. Admins need to have an accurate understanding of policy (or read the relevant page when they don't). Neutral (rather than oppose) because you seem like a good candidate apart from that. Cynical 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - A large part of an admin's position is helping diffuse conflict. That work happens on the talk pages of articles. Less than 1% of the users edits are to article talk pages. --Rocksanddirt 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    #Neutral - I would like to support, but I wouldn't feel comfortable about it, given some of the responses and entries above. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose[reply]
  8. Neutral simply too many doubts about you knowledge re: fair use policy and your ability to handle conflict.-- danntm T C 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - Seems a good candidate, but lack of knowledge when it comes to fair-use policy really sways me away from support. Not quite enough to oppose, though. TheIslander 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - lack of knowledge in some key areas, less quality article contribs than I'd like, very few talk page edits. Just not enough for me to agree on, but suggest later RfA. David Fuchs (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category