Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan De Smet: Difference between revisions

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

Alan De Smet

Final (6/25/9); Ended 06:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan De Smet (talk · contribs) - Alan De Smet has been around for a while and has made a lot of edits. He would make a great admin. February 15, 2009 (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone considering my nomination should know: the time I have to spend working on Wikipedia is already overwhelmed with work to be done. I have a backlog of work to be done. As a result, I don't foresee spending much time doing tasks requiring access to the administrator tools. But maybe just a little bit of time, maybe my directly doing painfully obvious deletions or protections, will help just a little bit and be worth elevating. If it's not worth the overhead of having another administrator who will contribute so little, so be it.

Furthermore, I am an inclusionist at heart, tempered by an understanding that most deletionists are simply trying to hold Wikipedia to high standards so that it can be great and not just another heap of unfiltered garbage on the internet. But it twists my heart to delete sincere contributions, and tortures me to see things deleted on technicalities. I mention this because it will come up in answers below.

— Alan De Smet | Talk 06:06, 27 October 2008 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Very little. Quick deletions of painfully obvious new copyright violations or other obvious Prod/CSD work. When in doubt I will err extremely on the side of not using these tools; both out of general caution with powerful tools and because of my inclusionist tendencies. I do appreciate that my inclusionist tendencies will tend to bias me toward restoring things, and as such I intend to be extremely careful in using those tools as well. (Edit 2008-10-27: Added "When in doubt" to clairify intent.)

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

A: T. John Ward was originally authored by me, and I believe the lion's share of the content remains authored by me. While perhaps not the most eloquent prose, it's extremely carefully cited and I believe conveys the key points about this man. Naturally I'm proud of it.

It's tiresome work, but I work to add citations to articles wherever I can; sometimes fully fleshed out, but sometimes just a quick link to a web page, which is better than no citation at all. ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) I strive to flesh out or better format citations whenever possible, be they my own added earlier in haste, or others. ([6] [7]). No individual edit is much, but I'm proud of the collective result.

I also do what I can to add suitable images to articles and to improve the images present. Full upload log]. I've uploaded a number of photos of my own creation of people who have articles, (ex: 1 2 3), a few other relevant photos of article subjects (ex: 1 2). I've created a few original illustrations (ex: 1 2 3), and converted a few others (ex: 1) 2). I've taken some graphs and created them using gnuplot, which gives okay, if unexceptional, SVG output but more importantly is really easy for other people to update with new information. (ex) None of my image work is brilliant, but I believe I'm filling holes and making things better for it and I'm proud it.

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'm involved enough with Wikipedia that conflicts are inevitable. I try to bite my tongue and wait if necessary before replying. Of course, disagreements go to Talk pages, not into edit wars. I strive to use logic and defer to the policies and guidelines. While perhaps not flattering to me this pretty well documents the most recent serious stress causing incident. I know there have been one or two other incidents that caused me similar levels of stress, but they escape me at the moment. The more strict editors and robots (User:BetacommandBot being one obvious one) are also an ongoing source of stress. I respect the need to keep Wikipedia to the highest verifiable standards, but I am inclusionist in my heart. I strive to not let my preferences taint my actions, but I'll admit that many of the fair use claims I've added for images are perhaps unnecessarily wise-ass.

(Late addition) I should note that on occasion I go and write angry things about all sorts of things. Of course I'm going to rant about Wikipedia. 1, [2]. Both rants are more than a bit out of date, and don't entirely match my current views. But they are out there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Ameliorate!

4. You state in your answer to question 1 that "my inclusionist tendencies will tend to bias me toward restoring things". In what circumstances would you restore ("undelete") an article?

A: My general plan would be articles that had been deleted via PROD or CSD, but in which the decision was clearly erroneous or was trivially fixed. I believe and hope that such situations are extremely rare, and I don't plan on actively seeking them out, so I imagine it will be a rare action on my part. I do not want to put another admin in the position of redeleting something I restored. As such, the first step is always discussing the deletion with the editor who made the deletion and only moving forward if the other editor agreed. In the event of an unresolvable disagreement, I would actually be prone to go to Deletion Review before deciding for myself to restore it.

I can foresee restoring articles that appeared to be deleted as vandalism (perhaps the account was compromised). For example, I can't see any reasonable circumstances that George W. Bush should be deleted short of vandalism and if I happened to be the first admin on the scene I would restore it. This seems likely to be so rare that I may never do it.

I was recently introduced to the idea of "restoring to user space" so that non-admin users can review an article deleted for, say, lack of notability and potentially improve the article to meet the guidelines and then move it into place. This seems like an excellent policy and I can foresee doing so for plausible requests, however it's not something I'm deeply familiar with and I would learn more about the policies and guidelines involved before doing so.

Optional question from ϢereSpielChequers

5. You have some strong views on certain wiki policies, are there any current policies which you would be uncomfortable enforcing if you had the mop, and if so what would you do about it?

A: If we're limiting ourselves to policies, I'm not of the belief there are any policies I disagree with. I believe there are guidelines I disagree with, but upon review of likely candidates in WP:N-land I was unable to find something I'd disagree with. Either they've been drifting toward my beliefs, I've been drifting toward the consensus, or my recollections of notability arguments is blending what people claim is a guideline with what is actually there.

However, I am generally uncomfortable deleting an article with marginal notability. Take, for example, Xlear Nasal Wash. I believe it's not notable, but I'm not comfortable enough with the guidelines for medical products to take it to PROD or AfD. So I gutted what I felt was off topic or advertising and left it as a stub. (I should note that 69.128.156.173 in the Xlear edit history is me, failing to have logged in.)

So how would I handle such a situation? If I could provide evidence of notability I would add it, but obviously that has nothing to do with being an admin. If I couldn't, I would just walk away and leave it to others to decide if it should be deleted.

So what would I delete? Only the most egregious examples. Say, articles for bands that never released an album nor have reviews. (I seem to recall absolutely agreeing that Origins should be deleted, but it's been a while since I've seen the article.)

General comments

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

• Links for Alan De Smet: Alan De Smet (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/Alan De Smet before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support clean block log, moderately good amount of contributions, Why the hell not? one good use of the tools benefits the project. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Moral support I mean I unblocked the nominator. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I think you would make a fine administrator. I do not see any objections not to support you at this point. I wish you the best of luck and hope you get to be a administrator! J.B. (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong support per User:Alan_De_Smet#Things_that_make_me_weep_for_Wikipedia. I appreciate someone telling things as they are (although, I can't stand any use of the nonsense non-word "cruft"...). Clearly gets that we are primarily here to build an encyclopedia and that Wikipedia:Editors matter. I also like that the candidate has never been blocked. --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong support, per opinions on deletionism (per above). --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Support candidate has been here a long time, cares about the content, knows enough about his stance to clearly disclose it, but as per clear answers to questions would not abuse tools. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per the block notice on the nominator's talkpage and Things that make me weep for Wikipedia on the candidate's userpage; anyone who thinks that articles are deleted because they "[don't] meet some petty deletion-biased bureauocrat's intepretation of the guidelines" either does not understand our policies or the concept of consensus. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 06:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose per userpage. Anyone who posts that and then says in their statement that they "[understand] that most deletionists are simply trying to hold Wikipedia to high standards so that it can be great and not just another heap of unfiltered garbage on the internet" is at best an idiot for assuming people wouldn't check their userpage and at worst a very poor liar trying to weasle their way past RfA. The nom hardly inspires confidence either. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   As far as I see the candidate linked himself to his 'rants' on his suerpage[8] before the first vote, so I'd take issue both with the substance and tone of your comments. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   For the record, I had begun to look into their contributions etc. before they posted the links, when I stumbled across their userpage and nominator's talkpage I made the decision to oppose and section-edited to oppose, so I only seen that they had linked to their 'rants' after I !voted. There is a possibility that Ironholds is in the same boat. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Well, I hoped my wording takes account of the possibility that others didn't see that, so the AGF link wasn't necessary. It hardly ever is. My issue here is that the position itself is potential concern enough, nor would I see the existing differences in wording between RfA and user page, both of which are public self-representations, as reason to call someone an idiot or liar, whether or not the candidate points out himself that he uses elsewhere stronger wordings than in this official candidacy. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Regardless of anything this candidate might have said on his talk page or in this RfA, calling him an idiot and a liar is a most blatant form of incivility and personal attacks. I kindly ask Ironholds to strike out that part of his comment and reword it so that his comments are reflective on the editor's contributions rather than the editor as a person. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, whoa, that's not cool there, Ironholds. [ roux ] [x] 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose – per Ameliorate and Ironholds. If that is the candidate's perception of the AfD process, then I have little to no confidence in his or her knowledge of how consensus works. Furthermore, the candidate has hardly any project space edits (49 total), basically no experience in admin-related areas, and the answer to Q1 doesn't give me any reassurance in terms of how the candidate will utilize the tools. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Was going to vote "Support", but the user page issues brought up above are disturbing. No thanks, not at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC).
5. Oppose - not exactly a glowing nomination - and by a nominator who was recently blocked. If I've read this correctly, the candidate says he doesn't need the tools, doesn't plan to use them much, and doesn't particularly care whether or not he receives them. In that case, why waste everyone's time with this process at all? — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   My thinking is that perhaps I won't end up doing much, but at least it's a little bit that another administrator is freed from doing, freeing time to deal with other admin tasks, maybe do some normal editor work, or just de-stress a bit. I've always seen a key part of Wikipedia is set the barrier to entry so low that if someone wants to pop in to make a minor improvement, they can, allowing lots of people to share the load. It seems like a larger number of trustworthy admins could help share the administrative load. I like to think I'm a trustworthy human being, and that I could help share the load in a meager way. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Several people have expressed concern that Feb15 nominated me. Feb15's status seems unrelated to me. I did quickly review him when he nominated me, and as best I can tell he is a good faith editor, if relatively new, and his nomination was well intentioned. I would hope that any further decisions about granting me adminship would be limited to my qualifications or lack thereof, not those of a third party. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   The nom was blocked for having a confusing username, which is the most subjective part of our username policy. This reflects nothing on the behavior or the qualifications of the nominator. I'm not going to say anything about the other issues with the candidate, but I couldn't shut up and watch an irrelevant reason be listed to support an oppose.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Strong oppose - My basic criteria for support !voting on an RfA is simply that I can trust the editor, and that I cannot. Candidate seems confused over their stance on deletionism, and they have little to no experience in admin areas. You were also nominated by a user with, lets say... a not particularly clean track record. I apologise, but there is no way that I can support. To reiterate what Ameliorate! said, candidate also appears not to understand core policies, or the notion of consensus. If this oppose streak continues, I'd suggest WP:SNOW withdrawal, but that's either up to the candidate or a 'crat to decide. — neuro^(talk) 10:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
7. The vast majority of the stuff deleted from Wikipedia is correctly deleted; because of that, the exceptions stand out, leading people to assume that we have a problem with trigger-happy admins. Anyone with sufficient experience of Wikipedia deletions to become an administrator will have learned that we don't particularly. On that basis, I oppose Alan's nomination. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose: I don't see any reason to give the candidate admin tools. He says that he's going to work very little anyway, and that little too with only deleting. He also says that he will err a lot if not having the tools, but I don't see how, considering he's an inclusionist. An inclusionist would want to keep the articles if possible, so it's not like he will go about placing CSD tags on every other page (which means minimal errors, right?). Then if he becomes an admin, I don't see how this situation is going to change. And anyway, if the candidate is not confident of his judgment now, it's not like we can give him a sort of a "test run" to see how he does and if this will change. Maybe I'm being stupid here, and if so, I'd appreciate it if somebody could point me in the right direction. Chamal ^talk 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   I fear you've misread what he said - "I will err on the side of not using [admin tools]" says to me that if he's given admin tools, if he's unsure at any point over whether he should use them or not, he will avoid using them. It was nothing to do with "err" in the sense of making mistakes, it was a variation on the phrase "to err on the side of caution". ~ mazca ^t|c 13:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, right. I was thinking that it was something like he was promising to be more careful if he gets the tools. So then, he might just as well be more cautious now. Thanks for clearing that out, Mazca. But there's still the problem that he's not going to use the tools much. I think he could be of more use if he did the tagging of pages as a normal user, without becoming an admin for that single purpose. Chamal ^talk 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   Re: No particular reason to give access; I attempt to explain my reasoning in a reply to Cactus above. (Thank you Mazca for clarifying my intent; my original message was awkward.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose I'll have to oppose this because of the questionable nom and the lack of experience and need for the tools. I have to echo the sentiment that you should spend some more time in AfD, for a couple reasons. First you'd see how the process generally gets thing right, and second, so we have another valuable content building editor who understands what goes into writing to help decide on certain cases that may otherwise be overlooked. --Banime (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

   If by "questionable nom" you mean because Feb15 nominated me, that seems off-topic to me (per longer response to Cactus above.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose As per the cogent comments raised by everyone who got here ahead of me (I really need to get into these discussions earlier). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Very odd nom + Frank in the neutral section overwhelm me. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    If by "Very odd nom" you mean because Feb15 nominated me, that seems off-topic to me (per longer response to Cactus above.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose I fail to see why this user should get administrative tools when their answer to Q1 clearly states that they wouldn't use them very often. Ollie Fury _{Get ready for October 31} 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    Re: I attempt to explain my reasoning in a reply to Cactus above. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    I'll change to neutral. Ollie Fury _{Get ready for October 31} 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose. So basically, we have here a candidate who only has the time to perform two tasks, and whose religious convictions prevent him from performing one of the two. Splendid. The candidate's perspective on the deletion process is best described as "completely out to lunch". The dump I took this morning was, I assure you, a sincere contribution. Unfortunately, it was still crap. Badger Drink (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose Per Ironholds. America69 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Primary per Ironholds' oppose. —macy 19:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per lack of projectspace contribs. Spend some more time there, come back in 3 months? [ roux ] [x] 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Offbeat noms are usually a good sign but this one verges on the downright weird which leads me to conclude he should not be trusted with the tools. Oh, and what Badger Drink said. Oppose. X MarX the Spot (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Weak Oppose - per "valid content deleted because it doesn't meet some petty deletion-biased bureauocrat's intepretation of the guidelines" is simply understanding of policy. Also, his Q1 answer shows no need for tools, their putting their "inclusionism" as somehow more important than improving the encyclopedia, and their overall attitude all are negatives. The nom I don't really care about,and actually looking through the deletion discussions shows that he does nominate articles for deletion [9], even ones in his areas of interest, [10]. Finally, not enough wikispace participation. The editor is clearly a "good" editor who sources, cites, cleans up, and is a positive asset to WP. Maybe in six months. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Troubling judgment concern in accepting nomination from nominator-- a relatively new user with < 100 edits. While I agree that sometimes articles are deleted that would be better kept, it is also true that the reverse is true. I'm not convinced that the candidate as adequate grasp of and acceptance of the relevant policies to trust with the undelete button. It is unusual for this to be the problem. There is no doubt in my mind that the candidate would not delete items that should be kept, and I would support a limited use as proposed for images, but I see little activity in image deletions. Furthermore, while it was made long ago, I find this edit to a later deleted image troubling-- "While any rational human being could figure out that a scan of a video game's box would be fair use in an article about that video game. However, Wikipedia is about mindless enforcement of petty rules, not rational behavior. So to please the wikibureaucrat's, an explicit fair use claim follows." It is relevant in that it connects the candidate's rather extremist views with the area in which he wishes to work. I believe the editor would benefit from more all-round experience in the admin related areas. Dlohcierekim 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    What exactly is the bad judgment of accepting such a nomination? I believe Feb15, relatively new though he may be, was sincere in his nomination. Upon reflection, I decided it was worth giving a shot. I have on occasion thought, "It seems a shame to have to bother an admin to do this obvious task." Put another way, if I had nominated myself, would it change your perception in that matter? Feb15 simply provided a minor push to give it a try. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    Re: the edit you quote. It was written in frustration and while I stand by my writing, poorly expresses what I was frustrated at. There was a period when I felt like I was spending all of my time running around chasing after fair use claims. Making explicit fair use claims is important, but it sometimes felt like there is a subset of editors who delete first and ask questions later. And unless the "Delete" button is really, really easy to use, it seems like identifying that there was a fair use claim and correcting the image was almost as easy. This is much less of a problem these days, as editors and bots are much better at posting warnings on relevant talk pages so I can notice and fix them, as opposed to noticing because an image disappeared from an article. Or perhaps the images on articles I pay attention to have all been sorted out, so my little part of the work is done. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose; too radical for my taste. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Weak Oppose - I'd prefer that admins are completely neutral, and this editor doesn't appear to be that at all. Good luck anyway, Matty (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    I suspect it's a rare admin who is completely neutral for any meaningful definition. Every editor has their opinions on how best to improve Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm exceptionally loud and course about my opinions, but I don't think they're fundamentally on the fringe. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    Completely neutral? How do you achieve that then? — neuro^(talk) 23:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose seems too biased and (to a degree) disregarding to authority. Normally opinion/bias doesn't matter, but here it's clearly having an effect on your editting, dude. It seems obvious to me that it will totally effect your administrative decisions too.--Koji† 21:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

    Do you mean it's impacting my edits to article-space? I strive to ensure that my article-space edits are always good additions. I may be heated on my own user page or on talk pages, but I don't think I've ever let it bleed into my article-space work. If I have, please point a few examples out to me, as I absolutely want to stop doing so! Perhaps my image space edits are a bit much with the editorializing about Wikipedia; and I do work to keep it to a minimum these days. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

22. Oppose - this RfA is not off to a good start. An RfA should inspire confidence in the candidate. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose primarily because of the opinions in "Things that make me weep for Wikipedia". It leads me to think the candidate doesn't respect policy or consensus enough not to put his own opinions ahead of them, so I don't feel confident in giving him the tools right now. Reyk _YO! 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose Unsatisfactory question answers. Mww113 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose - not because user is an inclusionist, but that he denigrates deletionists and their methods on his userpage (the weep thingy). Man, I've had enough of that attitude to last a lifetime in regular users; certainly don't need it in another admin. Tan | 39 04:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, I wouldn't expect problems if you were made an administrator, but due to how little you'd actually make use of the tools I just don't feel the "risk/reward" balance is quite there. I'm sure you'll carry on making great contributions without them, I don't suspect you're missing out. I would, however, encourage you to spend some more time at AfD even if you don't intend on running for adminship again: while I'm entirely supportive of your generally inclusionist viewpoint, I think it'd help you to realise how much total garbage does get correctly processed every day. And plus, as you say on your userpage - as worthy article-building Wikipedians often avoid AfD, why not bring your opinion to more of them? ~ mazca ^t|c 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - with only 49 edits in the Wikipedia name space, I just don't see enough to gauge a knowledge of policy sufficient for an admin. Often we chastise candidates for a perceived lack of a specific area; however, I am not saying "candidate doesn't have enough participation in fill-in-the-area-du-jour" - I'm saying there isn't enough in any admin area. I am also somewhat troubled by the points raised by opposers above, but not enough to oppose myself at this time.  Frank  |  talk  14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Not enough experience in the projectspace to support. Sorry, Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. You seem like a good, sound editor, and your honesty in answering the "standard" questions is admirable. Unfortunately, you have little experience in the project space. I would recommend that you get involved in some of those areas, and apply again in a few months. Best of luck! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral. You sound like a good editor, but your strong views and your own, stated lack of need for the tools doesn't help. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - To avoid pile on, though at this time I do not the candidate has quite enough experience. Tiptoety ^talk 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Would make a good admin if it weren't for the extreme stances they take on certain issues. Garden. 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Following your answer to me earlier, I think a neutral vote is more appropriate for now. Ollie Fury _{Get ready for October 31} 23:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral this time I do want to point out that I asked the tools for exactly the same reasons as Alan:to delete the utter junk that I come across, and to examine deleted articles to see if they could be restored. Essentially, that all I've ever done with them, except block a few of the worst spammers i find in the process. It's quite enough to keep someone busy--check my log. What I do think is not acceptable is the low level of experience, which does not give me the necessary confidence in the ability to actually know what can and cannot be rescued. DGG (talk) 02:14, 28 October 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.