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

Closedmouth[edit]

Final (94/3/1); Closed by Rlevse at 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Closedmouth (talk · contribs) – Today I present Closedmouth (talk · contribs) to the Wikipedia community for adminship. I recently noticed CD in my image tagging work, as he is highly active in sorting images on both Commons and En. To my surprise I saw he had 96,000 edits and was not already an admin, so I looked closer.

Closedmouth has been a Wikipedian since 2005 and could be described clearly as a wikignome. He goes about his maintenance work quietly and courteously. Looking at his contributions I see BLP tagging, a successful CSD tagging record, an excellent understanding of reverting and reporting vandalism.

If selected as an admin, I would expect that Closedmouth would be able to perform the deletions he does now without having to tag the page and wait for an admin to review. Also, his work with Huggle would reduce the need of other admins to review AIV, as he could handle the cases himself. I have every expectation that he will continue his good work. MBisanz talk 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom Closedmouth has been an active editor for 4 years without a single block, AN/I thread, reincarnation, or ArbCom case. He's a mature, stable editor who shies away from the drama, something the project needs far more of. I have no doubt he will use the tools in a level headed manner helping clear the backlogs and to assist with his excellent anti-vandal work. BJTalk 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Damn right I accept --Closedmouth (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Anything I can sink my teeth into. We still have major backlogs piling up in places that people don't want to touch, and the times that I'm mostly active are not good times for most admins, so I'm always seeing vandals going unblocked, bad pages sitting around for way too long, things just not being done that could be done if I had the tools at my disposal. I want to help this place stay in shape, and it can be very hard to do that when you don't have the facilities.

Hey, that was pretty good!
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's very difficult to judge what my own "best" work is, but my work with AWB is probably the stuff most worth mentioning. I've done everything from fixing 5000 links to Buddha to typo fixing to attempting to format the dates for every single Australian biographical article (which was going quite well thank you very much until that injunction came along). At the moment I'm working on categorising BLPs which is apparently pretty important (crazy concept, I know).

I also work on shortening the short pages list, fight vandalism whenever I can get the chance (yes, I used to use Lupin's tool and popups, and I still managed to beat people to the revert. Those were the days...), and I've started moving free images to Commons, which having the bit would help me with.

That's good enough, right? Man, this is nerve-wracking; I've probably forgotten something, but if you want to trawl through my contribs looking for it, be my guest. Oh, and I should point out for the record that I am the worst factual writer in the universe, so my lack of content contribution is so our readers don't kill themselves trying to read an article I've written. (Answering these questions was hard enough, by gum.) Seriously, I don't write articles, and the pedia is better off for 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: No. If someone gets angry at me for something I've done, I usually run away and hide under my toadstool until they calm down or just realise why I was right in the first place. I don't hold my own opinion in high enough regard to get into a serious edit war.
follow up Q If you are active as an admin, you will not be as able to hide from conflicts. If someone challenges an admin decision of yours in angry terms, how will you deal with it? DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agh, yes, I just noticed I missed the second part of the second question. I'm a big fan of keeping a level head and not responding emotionally to challenges of my actions. Regardless of whether somebody is being angry and abusive toward me, if they present a valid argument based on policy, I am very much willing to revert my action(s). Why not? I'm certainly not infallible. And if somebody is just abusing me and calling me the worst admin ever and saying how they hate me because I deleted their page, well there's not really much to say to that, is there? Point out our policy, implore them not to attack others, keep emotionally detached from the situation, if it escalates, bring in a third party to defuse, step away. Pretty basic stuff.
Additional questions from Jennavecia
4a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: Difficult questions. I think we have a problem in general with a lack of references. There is an attitude amongst the general reading public that Wikipedia is the place you go to plug in all the crap you know about something, and the hell with verifiability. Once it's on Wikipedia it's truth. So yeah, taking that through to its logical conclusion, the potential for abuse is severe, and its implications only just now being realised. Our job right now is to make sure that we don't just allow bullshit to creep in, pile up, and pull us down from the inside.
4b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A: I don't think semi-protection really solves anything, it just frustrates people who want to contribute genuine content. Some kind of flagging would make the most sense, as it would allow readers to edit but give the community a greater level of control over potentially libellous material, but I've honestly not been able to make up my mind on what I think would be the best way to implement it, so I can't give a definitive answer at the moment.
4c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A: Defaulting to delete puts the onus squarely on the keep voters to verify claims made in the article, so that's making more sense the more I think about it.
'follow up q there has been considerable debate over this, and I'd like an expanded answer to show you are aware ofthe arguments on each side. DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I gave such a short answer was because I am very uninvolved with AFD, and don't plan on ever closing a debate that could be defined as no consensus. Consequently I felt it was inappropriate for me to expatiate at length on a field in which I am very inexperienced and not very knowledgeable at all. I felt it was better to just stick with what I thought was and is logical. I'm sorry if this is inadequate.
4d. For BLP AFDs where the subject has weighed in to request that their article be deleted, how much consideration, if any, do you give to that request?
A: Assuming that the requester is actually the subject, and that the complaint is merely about the article's existence rather than any contentious or libellous content, you can't control public knowledge of your existence, so there's no reason to consider their opinion above the community's unless they present a valid reason. Some guy bursting in and shouting "Hey! Delete my god damned article!" at everybody just doesn't hold any water. (How's that for a crude oversimplification!)
Optional question from Quadell
5. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?
A. I'm wracking my brains here. I'm pretty flexible, and I like to think I'm a reasonable person. If there are good reasons for me to change my opinion, I'm happy to. I guess the best example I can think of is the current date delinking nightmare. I was in the middle of a large AWB project and had to abandon it about a quarter of the way through. It was frustrating, but I knew that to continue in spite of the injunction would be foolishness of a grand scale, so I just swallowed my contempt for the ridiculous wikilawyering that was going on and found something else to do. Making a stand, getting pissed off, throwing shit around, calling people names...it's really not my style. There's so many better things I could be doing with my time. That's all I really have to say on the matter.

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:

6. Here is a general question about WP:A7. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets WP:A7. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started a short article on The Political Quarterly. It was promptly nominated for speedy deletion, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use ((prod)) or ((afd)) instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. I don't know why this has taken me so long to answer, it's a fairly simple question on a subject that I am relatively well versed in. Okay, making no judgements of character or motivation upon the users involved, the article should not have been tagged for deletion or subsequently deleted because a) speedy deletion criterion A7 does not allow for publications to be deleted under its jurisdiction...or whatever you call it, and b) even if publications were able to be deleted under A7, the initial article made several claims to notability which specifically disqualifies an article to be speedily deleted. Which ties into your second question nicely: any article with a claim of notability should not be deleted...speedily. (This does not include such claims as "John Doe is the greatest guy in the world" and "i pwn ur ass".) If there are claims but they can't be verified, prod it instead.

The End.

General comments[edit]

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

[1] My talk page is not broken. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a load left that you still haven't removed. I was going to go through them yesterday but found someone had gone through them already - you. I'd appreciate a less sarcastic response next time round, thanks. Majorly talk 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just don't really understand what this has to do with my RFA. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise. Are you going to update the page or not? Cheers, Majorly talk 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2] --Closedmouth (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support As nom. MBisanz talk 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As more sexy nom. BJTalk 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Yes, totally. More gnomeish admins must be good. --GedUK  07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --DFS454 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support absolutely - longterm good user with a clean block log and a sense of humour. ϢereSpielChequers 08:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, he's a great user and I've often seen him around displaying it :). Good choice - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Absolutely.  GARDEN  08:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Support I've seen him active in image areas and he seems fine.--Caspian blue 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) - (addendum) The mocking move summary of a Blp article is inappropriate but I hope it is an isolated incident and not happen again.--Caspian blue 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Duh. FlyingToaster 09:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I trust this user to act responsibly. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per MBisanz. GT5162 (我的对话页) 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. the_undertow talk 10:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Per nom/above. FunPika 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Yes, I'm surprised he didn't try this before. -- Mentifisto 10:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support - I, unfortunately (heh), know this user from elsewhere, and know that he is funny, well intentioned, and is a great person to be able to work alongside. Definitely. — neuro(talk)(review) 11:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - no issues. Deb (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support Wizardman 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per MBisanz. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Strikes me as a mature and reasonable person. I want someone with a sense of humour to have the tools, not some tightarsed twerp. I'm fine with administrators having a sense of humour; I wasn't aware there was an exchange policy "give up your sense of humour today and win a shiny new banhammer!". Not to go stereotypical or anything, but lol I thought he wuz one already. I'm done, now where's my coffee. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Get it yourself! --Closedmouth (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Looks fine to me.  Channel R   15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support avoids drama. Would use tools well without abuse.  Marlith (Talk)  15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per nom. Timmeh! 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - obviously. Has clue, will use it, zero chance of tool abuse. //roux   16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good clueful editor, I believe he will use the tools well. Cool3 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support Reasonable person with whom I have had nothing but positive interactions. I do hope that being an admin won't change the pleasant person that I occasionally see on IRC. —Neskaya kanetsv? 16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support - strong candidate, and not a newbie biter either, helping out newbies on IRC when they need help. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support - Told him to run a few months ago, has gone out of his way to help me several times. — R2 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -download | sign! 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support bd2412 T 18:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Why not. America69 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. No problems - as I said in the oppose section, I don't like that userbox very much but it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Overall your edits are excellent and you seem to have a good clue of what you're doing and how admin tools will help you. Best of luck. ~ mazca t|c 19:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support - clueful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - A clueful CSD tagger, a very seldom kind of candidate here (just two mistaggings in the last month, [3] and [4]). We need more admins at CSD and I feel Closedmouth will make a fine addition to the "team". Regards SoWhy 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Although he should open his mouth.--Giants27 T/C 19:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Per nom. J.delanoygabsadds 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support seen him/her around a bunch and seems fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support got a good sense of policy and nothing leads me to believe that you'll abuse the tools. What happened in the past was an unfortunate, but honest, mistake. ThemFromSpace 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support don't like the userboxes, but have never seen a bad edit which is far more important. King of the North East 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Grasps the BLP problem and is willing to work to fix it. لennavecia 22:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support →Na·gy 22:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per King of the North East. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per MBisanz and a look through the candidate's contributions. --CapitalR (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Has done good work, and shown a need for the tools. I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe me may misuse or abuse the tools. Tiptoety talk 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - looks good. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support What!? not an admin O[]O didn't know that. - Fastily (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support primarily per WP:AGF, i.e. no memorable negative interactions, no blocks, etc. I can honestly see where the user below is coming from to some extent with regards to the userboxes, but again, I'm willing to assume good faith here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support No reason to believe that this editor would abuse the tools. None of the opposes are in any way persuasive. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Indeed. --candle•wicke 13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Looks great! GlassCobra 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I thought I did this already. Oh well, good luck!  iMatthew :  Chat  13:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - per nom. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Weak support. Despite his long history here, I can't find any evidence of how he would react if he were in a serious disagreement with a highly annoying editor. I hope he wouldn't misuse the tools. But on the other hand, he's stayed the hell out of conflicts so far, despite his userboxes, and seems likely to make a good dent on the backlogs. – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support: Excellent recent changes and new page patroller. Knows what he's doing, and should have got the tools long ago. Chamal talk 06:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Damn right I support. Daniel (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Nothing convincing in oppose section, good contributions; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. No real problems, but I would watch the edit summaries and block reasons you use as an administrator. The one brought up in the oppose section is not too bad, but as an admin your behavior will reflect on the entire encyclopedia. Other than that, there are no other problems I can see. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. 'Support - yes, the curved quotation marks are problematic, but we shouldn't use descriptives like that. However, I am sure that wont ever be a problem in the future, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, most certainly not. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I'd like a somewhat wider knowledge of various admin functions, but I think he's close enough. DGG (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Looks good. :O hmwithτ 04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support: Closedmouth has demonstrated that they are hardworking, have huge dedication to the project and that above all have a good sense of judgment, all qualities needed in an admin SpitfireTally-ho! 16:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support - far surpasses my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Congratulations on your work so far - I'm sure you'll work well with the mop. Dean B (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Net positive to the project. — Σxplicit 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Yeah, why not :) Steve Crossin Talk/24 07:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Absolutely. AdjustShift (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: I like his approach to editing, and his sense of humour. I don't see a problem with the userboxes, though I can understand that one of them is borderline. Overall, though, I think the clue and intelligence and disregard for the drama boards speak well for his ability to be a fine admin. Maedin\talk 09:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to multiple areas of the project. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per the other nominations as well his answers to the displayed questions. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 09:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I don't care for the picture his choice of userboxes has painted, but the contributions indicate a strong net positive. — Ched :  ?  17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support User has been around since Sept 2005 and track is outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Looks like a good guy to me. Supergeo (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Nearly 100,000 edits, how can anyone possibly say no? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Closedmouth is a fantastic user who will do well with a few extra tools. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - No reason to oppose Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - yes, absolutely Fritzpoll (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support to add to the pile-on. ThemFromSpace 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) You already voted, see #42 Tex (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support No concerns for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support No worries after taking a few quick looks at random contributions. I find the opposes to be really shaky. That edit summary wasn't the kindest thing ever, but it'd take somebody with excessively thin skin to be seriously offended by it. RayTalk 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Good answers, good edit work, level head. Good admin candidate. LK (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Much clue, and I admire the BLP work. Keep it up and good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Good answers to questions (particularly q. 3 :-)) and can't see why not. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Hardworking editor that has shown calm, mature, and intelligent contributions to the encyclopedia. Admin hat would allow for an increase in productivity. Noted his concise, yet kind mannerism in correcting new editors. --Preceding unsigned comment 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - seems to do good work.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - looks good to me.  Frank  |  talk  02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Per above.WackoJackO 05:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Good candidate, no reason to oppose. (Just at the last moment though). Pmlinediter  Talk 07:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
I wasn't going to actually vote on this, but per the completely unnecessary sarcasm above, and this totally unnecessary edit summary, I have to wonder how seriously you're taking this. Majorly talk 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the sarcasm, surely the users talk page was a more appropriate venue for the discussion? Camw (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps - this does not explain the "majorly darling" response though. It was a reasonable request, responded to in a very inappropriate way. Majorly talk 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate has apologised to me privately, so striking - my sense of humour must have been switched off at that moment. This was an apparent misunderstanding. Majorly talk 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is only a weak oppose, but this move summary disturbs me. It's innapropriate. I also don't see many edits at all outside of vandal fighitng.--Pattont/c 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I thought I should just point out that I've opened Huggle maybe three times in the last two weeks. I try to limit my vandal-fighting to when it's needed, say when there's a spike in vandalism, or there's nobody else doing it. There are plenty of other capable and experienced vandal-fighters out there who don't need me stepping on their toes. I do other things, I promise! :P --Closedmouth (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFA is going to pass, I am opposing to get my message across. The carts aren't going to count it. Please just don't use edit summaries like that in future.--Pattont/c 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Candidate's selected userboxes paint a far different picture of him than what the nominators claim: that of a pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful user. No thanks. Keepscases (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do his contributions suggest that he's a pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful user? If so, I may have to reconsider my vote. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone else snuck those userboxes onto his page, that's quite an easy question to answer. Keepscases (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see your point here, I've never noticed User:Infinoid/UBX/Antitheist before but the second clause in it does seem to cross the line from "stating your views" into "attacking the views of others". I may think about MfDing that userbox, but I'm not personally bothered enough to oppose this RfA over it. I'll look more at contributions later. ~ mazca t|c 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why delete it? I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I am also consistently amazed that some people believe they shouldn't actually be judged by what they choose to speak. The selection of a userbox like that one speaks volumes about a user; certainly indicates a lack of tolerance, humility, tact, and other qualities we should demand in adminstrators. Keepscases (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which user boxes are you talking about? The history of his user page shows him using the F word, he a fan of casual swearing. "This user is an antitheist, and finds belief in a God unbelievably irrational." or the one where he isn't proud to be an Austrian? Which ones exactly bother you? He has a lot of them to look through. Dream Focus 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the silliest opposes every DougsTech. We need MORE admins. Look at all the backlogs. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to respond to his opposes. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can there be some rule, so you can't oppose someone because there is too many admins? Because I along with many others are really over it. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mind that last comment as I can see that DougsTech likes the opposes. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Some say their are too many administrators and some say their are not enough administrators. Also I seem to find contradictory stuff from both sides.Hawkey131 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2009 (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