Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spebi: Difference between revisions

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

Spebi

Final (63/1/3); Ended 9:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Spebi (talk · contribs) - Spebi has been with us since January this year, and during this time has conducted himself with integrity and distinction befitting the even best administrator. I have observed Spebi interact with editors in a variety of situations, and what I saw was a consistently level-headed, responsible and courteous editor who was rarely flustered and who has earned the respect of those around him.

Spebi has contributed in all areas of Wikipedia. He has significant experience in the article space, with major contributions to Powderfinger, Powderfinger discography, List of Powderfinger awards, Habbo Hotel, The Chaser's War on Everything, Guns N' Roses, and a variety of other articles. His mainspace edits, approximately 2500, have been supplemented by experience in discussions, with around 2000 edits to various talk namespaces. His contributions to Portal:Music of Australia and associated subpages have also been highly constructive.

Additionally, Spebi has shown that he is more than capable of working within the Wikipedia namespace with administrator-like tasks. He is a willing contributor to the help desk assisting new users, and his experience here serves him well to be an effective administrator. Spebi also has experience with both Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, two processes which I'm confident would benefit from Spebi having the tools.

Spebi has proven since he arrived here at the start of this year that he is courteous, helpful, honest and can apply his discretion effectively and also think for himself. He is also one of the most kind and friendly users I have met on Wikipedia, and has, in my opinion, gained sufficient experience in relevant areas to make a fantastic administrator. Daniel 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I kindly accept this excellent nomination from Daniel. Thanks :) Spebi 06:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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: I intend to take part in anywhere I can. If this nomination is successful, I will be reluctant to help out in all places, however, once I adjust to the changes I have no doubt that I will be capable in being involved in administrative tasks without losing my cool.

The main areas I intend to take part in are:

• AIV: I believe I have made many successful reports to this page, and have sufficient experience in this area to help out with the administrative anti-vandalism backlogs as they appear. I have observed other administrators' behaviour on this page, and I believe that I will be able to apply my judgement appropriately on this page and to vandals reported.
• ACC: I have experience responding to requests for accounts on this page, and successfully created one account for a user before I found out that the job was intended for administrators (creating username accounts which are "close" to already-existing usernames requires the administrator tools). I believe I will possess the ability to keep this process running smoothly, and avoid having requests stay on that page for a long amount of time.
• XFD: Of course, if this is successful I will most likely be reluctant to closing controversial or unclear debates straight away, but I think that I have enough experience in deletion debate areas to have the ability to close debates appropriately and and judge consensus while applying our core policies. Although XfDs generally isn't the most backlogged administrator process, I believe that it will benefit from an extra one helping out.
• RFPP: I believe I also possess the ability to appropriately attend to requests left on this page, as I also believe that I possess the ability to determine whether page protection is a necessary step in each individual case. Many of my earlier reports to RFPP were made back when I wasn't so aware of the protection policy, and made requests that were declined. I have since looked back on these particular requests and have acknowledged why they were declined in the first place, and have avoided making such requests in the future – instead, judging the page and asking myself whether it does deserve protection before making the request.
• CSD: As a keen Special:Newpages tagger, I believe that I can delete pages that clearly meet speedy deletion criteria when I see them, either when patrolling or clearing through CAT:CSD.
• DYK: As an administrator, I would be able to help by updating the "Did you know" section of the mainpage every six hours as required. Although I admit I have rarely edited there to this point, I have a good grasp of the process involved for administrators in updating the template, and am willing to help out with what is a rather tedious task. Further, while I'm still learning the intricacies of the process involved in updating them (I only know it generally from the "outside looking in"), Daniel has offered to guide me and teach me until I'm 100% confident to do so myself.
• RFU: if this nomination is successful, I would be keen to deal with unblocking users, and dealing with block-related issues. Although checking my experience in this area by looking at my contributions won't work, I understand the blocking policy fully and the unblocking parts and I understand that it's a courtesy to notify the blocking administrator in the first place before unblocking. As I have an activated working e-mail account, and I reply as soon as possible to e-mails received, I would be happy to respond to requests for unblock via the unblock mailing list.

These are among the areas I will be paying most attention to. Of course, as I said before, I am willing to offer my assistance in any administrative area, and by no means is this list limited.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I value all of my contributions to the article space on Wikipedia a lot, as I value my contributions to other areas of Wikipedia. I am proud of my work in the Powderfinger WikiProject: in particular, my recent edits and expansion with other users of the main Powderfinger article and general expansion, sourcing and fixes to the articles under the scope. Although I cannot take full credit for these, I must emphasise how proud I am of Powderfinger discography and List of Powderfinger awards, both featured lists, which I both worked on extensively with other members of the project. I also value my contributions to the articles The Chaser's War on Everything, Habbo Hotel, and the Bali Nine. Although these articles have not achieved any particular status (excluding The Chaser), I am proud of them nonetheless. I am proud of many of my "drive-by" edits; like fixing links, spelling errors, or dablink fixes, infobox updates and lately, Navbox standardisation. Although I can't really name any in particular, I am proud of them all.

I am really proud of my edits to the other namespaces, as well. I believe I have an advanced understanding of template syntax and parser functions, have created numerous templates in use today and have a few templates in particular easier to handle. I am also proud of my work in areas like the help desk, and generally responding to any queries I receive.

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 know that when corresponding with anyone on Wikipedia, it is of utmost importance to stay civil when discussing any issue. I believe that I have stayed civil in all areas of discussions that I have been involved in, and I strongly believe that possessing the ability to stay civil, stay cool and not treating little things like big things, is a quality that all users, in particular administrators, should possess.

I have been involved in several conflicts during my time here. I was involved in several conflicts on Habbo Hotel, where it was pretty much trolls v. me and a bunch of others. The trolling users kept warring to add a section about their "raids" on Habbo Hotel (not the article, but the actual online hotel), claims that online moderators were racists, among other arguments. However, only one actual reliable source was found, and from the detail given from that source, one sentence on the page was implemented. The trolls claim that more information be given on the raids, however, they fail to accept that YouTube videos and google images are reliable sources. I eventually ceased participating in that conflict, as I felt that it would never end, that neither side would be satisfied with the article.

I had some of the same problems on other articles, like Slipknot (band) and related articles, where new users would war over genres (this happens a lot on band articles) and inclusion of BLP-violating material. Some of the same problems occur (and still occur) on Guns N' Roses-related articles, where users war over the inclusion of unsourced "facts", fair use imagery, and false rumours about the release date of their upcoming album, Chinese Democracy. I no longer take part in those disputes, due to the same reason I stopped with the Habbo Hotel disputes. I felt that these disputes would never end, no one would be satisfied, and that there would be always someone complaining about it.

However, reading all this probably makes you think that any disputes I get involved in I walk away from. This isn't always the case. I feel different about each dispute, and that each dispute is different and comparing disputes isn't always the best thing. Some arguments are worth walking away from, because there is no point of continuing it (although it seems there was a point when the dispute started in the first place). Other disputes are different. I believe that if I do happen to become an administrator, I will apply my judgement, and discuss disputes appropriately.

"Optional" question

4. What is this all about? 82.19.15.225 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A: Hehe, I remember that. I made that a few months ago, just some testing I did for my future RfA, although I didn't base any of my answers this time around on that page. Any problems with it all? Spebi 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from O (talk)

5. What does "no consensus" mean? Be specific.

A: I believe that no consensus means when the two or more parties involved, or rather, the community, fail to come to an agreement on something. For example, let's say a local council is approached with a proposal to extend a major highway. Some members of the council say that the proposal should go ahead, because it makes for easier access to a certain destination. Other council members believe that the road will bypass residential areas and will create a lot of excessive and disruptive noise, because the council has insufficient funds to construct sound barriers. All members on either side are reluctant to change their opinions. If a similar proposal was proposed on Wikipedia, it is possible that members on either side are also reluctant to change their opinions – this would result in consensus not being formed, and the proposal not going ahead. Spebi 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

6. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A: The blocking policy states that, I quote, "Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them", and yes, I do intend to adhere to it. Recently many reports have been made to /Incidents regarding a block one disagrees with, but no attempt has been made to discuss the block, nor a possible unblock. The rule is in place not just as a courtesy, but because some blocks are not always straightforward. For example, if a user is aware that his account has been compromised, and this user tells a friendly administrator by email about this. This administrator decides to block the account with the summary "Comprimised", but another uninvolved administrator unblocks the account without any prior discussion with the summary "No evidence of the account being comprimised". The user who has now access to the account is disrupting Wikipedia as the original blocking administrator is contacting the unblocking one, or rather, re-blocking. The other administrator hasn't checked the users contributions to see its recent edits, and blocks the account again. This, by definition is a wheel war and could have been avoided simply by a talk page message.

Others, rather than starting a wheel war, or unblocking before discussing, tend to take this to /Incidents. Without any prior discussing with the blocking administrator in question, this report makes the noticeboard appear to be a complaints department. Rather than properly discussing the issue with the blocking administrator, the issue could have been solved on a user's talk page – unless it gets out of hand (e.g. blocking administrator blocks another user for questioning his/her blocks), it's better to discuss first – it does everyone a favour, whether it be the blocking administrator who has to be made to look like an abusive administrator, or the folks at /Incidents, who have to deal with another report which could have been simply resolved on a talk page. Spebi 04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Spebi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Spebi: Spebi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I do believe that pinging me to get on IRC isn't the best way to say "I accept your nom offer"...I'm so tempted to oppose right now. I think I'll wait for someone else so I can just use #~~~~, shall I? Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As someone who maintains a strict policy of not using IRC can you clarify the nature of your concern DHMO? I'm not clear what the issue is. Ta! Pedro :  Chat  08:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this in some way sarcastic, humourous or an inside joke? If so, I'm totally missing it. If it isn't, I still don't understand. Daniel 08:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Pedro: I don't use IRC either - that's exactly my point (see my talk page). Daniel: You're totally missing it. Sebi understands though. *disappears mysteriously into the night* Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Forgive me if incorrect, but I recall asking DHMO to come on IRC, because he offered to nominate me a while back. I thought it was only right to tell him that Daniel was nominating me and I was perfectly happy to receive a nomination from him. Spebi 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• I am uncomfortable that this RFA is several months in planning by this candidate, as referenced by the Meta page above. Perhaps it shows an unnecessary eagerness for some rather meagre buttons, when better things could be concentrated on. Also, the way it was done on Meta makes me uncomfortable. Was this trying to hide it from prying eyes of English Wikipedians? I hope not, but I am getting the feeling it could be. Apart from the slight uneasiness about this RFA, I believe this is a strong candidate and should be promoted. 82.19.15.225 13:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I find something incredibly amusing about the description of the 'prying eyes' of English Wikipedians when you can be bothered to go through his subpages at other wikis, Mr 82 :o) As for planning ahead - good for Spebi. I'd rather have admins with a plan than idiots who run into things slipshod, as some of our admins do ~ Riana ⁂ 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If you are active on Meta as I am, you do tend to see these things on recent changes ;) Planning is good for some things, but it can be unnecessary, and I believe it was. However that is nothing to say whether he'd abuse the tools, hence my indication the candidate be promoted. 82.19.11.88 19:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You do realise that I started planning on that page months ago with the intention of applying in January next year, but I ditched these plans (which I don't think were plans as such, just answers to questions), as you can see in my answers. This RfA I wrote up totally different answers, and only remembered that meta page when you brought it up, long after I had completed the answers. Back then I was eager to become an administrator, perhaps too eager, but now I feel different. I still want to become an administrator, but I'm not desperate, and my life won't be over if this fails, and I won't leave Wikipedia with the failed RfA on my mind. But thank you for your positive comments, 82 :) Spebi 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Daniel 06:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Almost beat-the-nom support! GlassCobra 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support (edit conflict) Great answers to the questions, undoubtedly can be trusted with the tools, an asset to the Wikipedia community. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - spebi has done some great work - I've seen him in action many times - he's knowledgeable of policy, is a good all-rounder, is trustworthy, "plays well with others" and never BITEy. He should make a fine admin - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - an excellent editor with an impressive record of civility. The comprehensive answer to question one is backed up by an edit history demonstrating solid experience in WP space. Euryalus 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Enthusiastic support - just a lovely bloke, and has a good knowledge of policy to boot. Should be great! ~ Riana ⁂ 07:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Excellent contributor. See no problems here. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 07:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support 'pedia builder extraordinaire. c'monboard cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Looks like a fairly well rounded contributor who has good use for the tools and can be trusted. Doczilla 08:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I first encountered Spebi when he peer reviewed an article I put up. He's a great article builder and the answers to question one and two shows he'll be a great asset to this project. Spellcast 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Seems like a great candidate, despite exposing my war on everything.--chaser - t 08:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per answers to questions. -- Jack 09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Support, definitely..! An excellent, curteous editor who has learned the ropes and plays well with others. Will make a fine addition to the Admin corps. Dreadstar † 10:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Excellent answers to the questions, good all round experience, shrewd and trusted nominator, talk page looks all good, can't see any civility issues, and personal interaction has always been very positive indeed. Did I miss anything out ? Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  10:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong, strong support You really can't get much more qualified than Spebi. Awesome candidate. This is long overdue. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Support This user answers questions and gives good advice. Will make an excellent admin. King Lopez ^Contribs 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Support -- have worked alongside this editor have only praise to offer. Editor is IMHO admin material. - Longhair\^talk 10:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Very Strong Support Great editor, who is a major asset to wikipedia. Also, has shown himself to be very reliable. Good luck!--SJP 11:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Jmlk17 11:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Recurring dreams 11:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
22. S-Support - I was impressed with this user's comments, here. I have followed through with some of the suggestions, and it looks better already. Thanks Spebi. Rudget _zŋ 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Recently gave me profound feedback^[1], but why not :D — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Support meets my standards found no evidence of incivility more than adequate time with project and contribution history Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Support He also occasionally promotes FLs although he sometimes forgets to read what times comments were posted. Either way, he seems like a dedicated user. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    But I'm sure that habit will wear off eventually :) Spebi 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

26. Support - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Anthøny 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Support --T-rex 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - Yeah.   jj137 (Talk) 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Wondered why he wasn't one yet. :) Pinball22 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Seriously wonderful Aussie :-) --Agüeybaná 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Aah well, it seems nobody gets my joke but me (if that!). I may as well explain it - and support at the same time (yes, that was a support comment). Basically, I’ve been trying to get Sebi to request adminship since shortly after a first encountered him. Out first encounter, interestingly enough (in my eyes, at least) was around the beginning of July 2007, when Sebi randomly came to my talk page and suggested I get a rename - something I ended up doing shortly after (G1ggy --> Giggy). I have no idea how Sebi stumbled across me there, but I have my strong suspicions he had been stalking me for weeks previously, as is his gnomish way. Anyways, we got on very well from the start. This was back in the days when, as others have tactfully put it, I was overly social to the point of forming cliques. Sebi is my clique (as well as my pimp, bro, home-dawg, and (according to his MSN) my #1 shorty). Um…yeah, so anyway, whilst I was innocently working on Powderfinger related stuff (long before Sebi was! :O), Sebi puts a faked block notice on my talk page, “blocking” me for telling to many good jokes. Which begged the question - if good jokes is the newest reason for which we can block, does Sebi have the technical ability to do so? The answer, was no - to which I quickly responded with an “OMG LET ME NOM YOU NOW!!!!111” Alas, this was also met with a no (do you think I came on too strong?). So I waited, and bid my time (*Mr Burns laugh*). I would say I reviewed his contribs repeatedly, but that would be a downright lie - instead I spammed his talk page repeatedly (and his MSN, once I convinced him it was safe to add me, and now his Google Talk, after I convinced him that all the cool editors used it (…even Riana, although that kinda does the opposite in terms of proving my point :P). Fast forward (we were still in July there) to more recent times - I’ve been repeatedly trying to convince Sebi to RfA, but with no success. A few other users have also gotten in on the act (I can even recall DarkFalls suggesting that WillyOnWheels should nom), but alas Sebi refused. Until now. And he didn’t give in because of my awesome convincing skills begging, he gave in because Daniel offered to nom. *storms off*… … … …*returns in a huff* In my time around here, I’ve worked with a lot of users, many of whom I consider friends. In terms of those “friends”, Sebi is absolutely at the top of the list. I sincerely hope the Wikipedia community trusts him, and appreciates him, as much as I have in the last five or so months. Sebi, thank you. Daniel, *shakes fist*^{As payback/compensation/whatever you wanna call it, you have to run for ArbCom now. So nah!} I’m Dihydrogen Monoxide, and I support this message! - Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    I didn't give in just because Daniel offered to nominate. Before GlassCobra offered to nominate me, there was no discussion between you and me about RfA as I recall. GlassCobra offered, and I thought I'd ask Daniel what he thought. I didn't think of asking you what you thought, because I thought that you were going to say that I was ready, like you have since you first offered :) Daniel thought that I was ready and he offered to nominate, I accepted. I emailed GlassCobra about this and told him he is welcome to nominate, but just supported anyway. I have told you that you are welcome to add your nomination, but I guess it's a bit late now... and I am somewhat sorry for not notifying you before I accepted, so you could then prepare a proper nomination statement. Spebi 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    Wow, I was totally expecting an "OMG that was a zomgorz awesomecakes nom"...who stole your sense of humour? Anyways...erm...yeah, best of luck, and consider that my nom. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

33. Weak support Seen this user around. Constructive contributor. And disregard what User:CO said while opposing; I don't even agree that Spebi assumes bad faith frequently. NHRHS2010 talk 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

    Dude, you can't just tell people to disregard another person's comments unless it's something totally weird like 'Spebi wears his Thursday underwear on Saturdays'. That's really quite rude. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed. The only people who can officially disregard comments are bureaucrats. As EVula suggests, however, feel free to ignore them as you please. Daniel 04:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

34. Support - I briefly interacted with Spebi at FLC when we each had a discography up. Very helpful. In looking over his contribs, I find nothing to give me pause. Nor does CO's vague, unsubstantiated oppose or the concerns of the IP concern me. Lara❤Love 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Strong support I have seen this user on the RC a lot, no problems. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
36. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. The answer to number one convinces me by itself. The rest sounds great too. I am more than willing to support this user. SorryGuy 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Support John254 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
39. Oh, yes. The day has finally dawned, and the mop lie within the basque of the rising sun. Seriously, let's go to WP:100, if not higher. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose Spebi wears his Thursday underwear on Saturdays. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    Please disregard this man's inane ramblings! :o ~ Riana ⁂ 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    But he has every right to voice his opinion! And I see the logic: If everyone did that, Saturdays would soon be confused with Thursdays. And isn't it one admin duty to reduce confusion?? So?? — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

41. No objections here. O₂ (息 • 吹) 05:01, 14 November 2007 (GMT)
42. Support. This user wears his Thursday underwear on Saturdays. Not to mention his plethora of experience in the Wikipedia namespace, he communicates plenty with other editors, and has been very active for the last 9 months. No reason to believe that he would misuse the mop. Useight 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Support, seems fine. Neil ☎ 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
44. Support per nom. The candidate will be an excellent admin. Majoreditor 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Support No major concerns here and good answers to the questions as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
46. Support — Save_Us_229 17:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Worthy candidate. Axl 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. A good candidate with well considered responses. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
49. Support, a solid candidate. --krimpet⟲ 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
50. Great user. Acalamari 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Make this a "strong support"; Spebi has good technical knowledge. Acalamari 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Your answer to my now routine question about unblocking was as good as any I have seen...thank you.--MONGO 05:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - very good editor, trustworthy, good luck! The Rambling Man 07:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
54. Miranda 09:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
55. Definite Support - Not happy about the fact I didn't get to the nomination first. He has a very good edit summary and I have always seen the utmost civility from them. --businessman332211 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - all the correct qualifications ;-) Lradrama 19:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
57. Yes. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
58. Support — Thank God I didn't miss the chance to vote. —Animum (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
59. Support — nothing wrong with this guy. I can't oppose just because he's an atheist (nor would I). All the best comrade. --lincalinca 03:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Seems a fine editor should make a fine admin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. Good range of experience - knows what he's doing. I think we're going to have to let him IAR as far as the underwear controversy is concerned. WjBscribe 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Agreed with everything said. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
63. Support, though I wonder if the candidate also rehearsed the obligatory talk page spam thanking us for our support. Honestly, a solid and well-trusted admin such as the candidate should do well with the mop. Good Luck, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    I don't rehearse everything I do, and because I prepared my answers which I didn't end up using doesn't immediately mean I plan everything I do. As for the thank you messages, I'm undecided on whether I should give them out in the first place. Spebi 04:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose user assumes bad faith frequently. CO 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   This is a rather strong comment. Do you have an example where? 82.19.11.88 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'm with the IP here. That's a rather serious accusation. I could find nothing recent to show that this user "assumes bad faith frequently." Do you have any diffs? Or are you just being pointy? --Agüeybaná 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   Aaah, CO...I look forward to Sebi's comments here - CO is on the right track :P Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   Diffs?? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   Until a diff is provided, I'd suggest that everyone just ignore the statement; the 'crats are intelligent to know what to do when faced with statements like this, and it is entirely unlikely to sway this RfA (which is currently at 39/1/0. Just move right along, don't feed anything... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   CO is unlikely to provide any diffs, given that his user page says he's retired from Wikipedia. Useight 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   His retirement happened prior to the comment.[2][3] The request, both for diffs and for people to just ignore the statement entirely, still stands. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   It still stands but without any merit. There's plenty of time to get diffs in 4 days... which, since he has not provided any, makes people wonder about the true intentions of this oppose. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Unsure This seems to be a very heated Rfa, and at this time, i am uncomfortable deciding one way or another. I will return later with a decision. Dustihowe 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   "very heated"? I've seen some pretty heated RfAs, and I can assure you this is not one of them. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, I agree, this is not very heated at all:) What makes you not want to support? Please share it with us, so we can make more educated "votes". Cheers!--SJP 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   "Heated"??? Man, the tally is 47/1/1 right now. That's as un-"heated" as an RfA can be. --Agüeybaná 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   No, you are wrong Agüeybaná. It could be 100/0/0;-)--SJP 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   Continuing to argue whether or not this RfA is heated isn't going to do much at all. Dustihow is entitled to his opinion, and if he believes that this RfA is currently heated, then so be it. He has said he will return with his mind made up, and personally, this sort of discussion probably brings this RfA closer to the description of "heated", anyway :) Spebi 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, I'd have thought Sebi wearing his Thursday underwear on Saturdays would really heat things up. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   I've heard of heated socks, but never heated underwear... how do you know it's going to be cold on Thursdays and not Saturdays? ;) Pinball22 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   Time to move to Dihydrogen Monoxide's talk page maybe? There's no room in this RfA for horny maniacs... ;) --D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

   Then why are you here? :O OH DAMN! :P Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2. True Neutral. I am unfamiliar with this user and, while I do not see anything specific that would lead me to distrust this user, I have the feeling that he wants the mop more than he needs it. I will not oppose for that alone. Best of luck! Bearian 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
3. neutral I feel uncomfortable with supporting this user. He has dome good article work work but still have that gut feeling. sry. Stupid2 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 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.