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

Fritzpoll[edit]

Final (69/10/3); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzpoll (talk · contribs) - I first ran across Fritzpoll when closing an AfD discussion, located here. I closed that particular contentious AfD, and was completely awestruck by the composure of this editor during that rather heated debate. Since then, I've been nothing short of immensely impressed with F-poll's dedication to Wikipedia. Motivated by the heat of that particular AfD, he took it upon himself to make sure that the particular level of disagreement didn't necessarily have to happen again, by creating a completely new guideline proposal to nip those divisive debates, located here. Fritzpoll is also an extremely talented and proactive technical user, which can easily be ascertained from here. We have here folks, a user that is completely dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia, someone that will only benefit from having access to the full set of user tools. I strongly encourage you to find even one reason to oppose this dedicated user. His edit count (including deleted edits -- he's fantastic at finding the cruft as well) is closing in on 4K. I'm proud to be the one to say "I nominated Fritzpoll", because I firmly believe he could be one of the best administrators of this encyclopedia yet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Gwynand - I also met Fritzpoll over at this AfD, where we disagreed on a few things, and this is where I was first impressed by his interactions. His AfD work is exactly what we should all strive to be doing; Fritzpoll does not just vote, he discusses, he tries to get at the core issues of notability and inclusion. Usually this comes with a catch, civility issues, but not in his case. Fritz wants to hear your opinion and wants you to understand the reasoning behind his, all why acting completely calm and accessible. His work on developing this proposal is great, but what impressed me so much about it is the fact that WP:N/CA hasn't been taken on as a community accepted guideline, yet Fritzpoll doesn't whine, he doesn't insult, he doesn't complain. He simply continues to see what he can do to improve it and see if he can get the community to agree, drama-free. Fritzpoll shows great judgement, temperament, and interest in policy and how it works. Maybe most importantly, he shows an interest in finding community consensus the right way.I believe he will make a very solid admin. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept - thank you Fritzpoll (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Although I've done a lot of New Pages patrol in recent times, I would still like to spend my time adding a lot to the encyclopaedia in terms of content. My work to date has concentrated on big cleanups in as small a number of edits as is possible, but I don't need the admin tools to carry on doing this. I think one of the main things I would like to do is work on Special:UnwatchedPages. Not only are these at risk from vandals (hence why non-admins aren't allowed to see them) but when they are unseen, they are forgotten, and when they are forgotten, they cannot improve. Now, I'm not suggesting that I shall single-handedly clean the backlog and bring the many thousands of entries up to FA (!) but I would like to work on reacquainting the articles with suitable wikiprojects or interested editors whilst keeping an eye out for vandalism within the articles themselves. That way they are better protected, and there is a real chance that their content will improve.
I would also like to check out the CSD/PROD nominations - when I started doing these, I made some howlers: principally because I didn't know much about WP:PROD at the time. As an admin (and as an editor who now knows better), I could delete the clear violations but also offer advice to good-faith new editors on how to improve their articles, or why their article isn't suitable, and userfying their article when appropriate.
Honestly, I can do most of this work without the bit - I can get an admin to scrape pages out of UnwatchedPages for me (started doing this at User:Fritzpoll/linkstowatch - thanks to Keeper) and I can do a bit more to help editors whose articles get deleted. Being an admin would just make these tasks easier and more direct. I don't anticipate racing all guns blazing into areas that I'm unfamiliar with just because I might have extra buttons. In time, interests change - even now I'm starting to get interested in bots for content creation - but I would always want to make sure that I learnt as much as possible, either by observation or by seeking guidance, before doing something I was unsure of. I just want to work where I might be useful to the project - the buttons might make it a little easier is all.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am quite proud of one of my more recent ones: Robert F. Kennedy assassination where I rewrote the article from this to this, mostly over one very long evening. I love sitting down with a set of notes and working out how to cleanup articles, although the effort involved means that I've managed to do this one, Nonlocality (one bit of polishing left to do) and my very first effort, which was Terry Wogan (see below - and now you know what order I answered in!). What I particularly liked about the Kennedy article though is that the changes prompted constructive dialogue on the talk page, and with that and Peer Review the current version is definitely a group effort and not just the result of one person's additions, reverts or changes.
I'm additionally pleased with my earlier work at Wikiproject:Apprentice, where we managed to get The Apprentice (UK Series Three) up to GA standard, and I was proud to contribute moderately to the now-FA The Apprentice (UK) although the FA itself took place whilst I was on a long wikibreak (due to a bereavement) so I cannot claim as much credit as others.
Finally, I am pleased to have provoked some debate on Wikipedia with my guideline proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), although this RfA will probably drive more traffic over to it than at any other point! The reasons for this being created are built up to in the next question.
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 going to deal with the stress part of this first, because the most significant example of stress on Wikipedia for me has been a conflict with User:Baseball Bugs at the AfD for Eve Carson. The stress arose because although Bugs and I were both quoting chapter and verse on apparently relevant polices, we were going round in circles. The best way to deal with stress on the internet is easy: go and put the kettle on. Although we are all by and large passionate about our contributions, it is still only the internet, and the AfD was still going to be there five minutes later! The mistake when coming back would have been to sit back and fall into the same tit-for-tat. I like to think that I did the sensible thing, and went and read what Bugs was saying - thoroughly. Then I compared the policies we'd quoted, and realised that we were both "right" - and actually this led to the guideline proposal that I made called Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts).
In a roundabout way, I think the way I deal with stress is to try to follow WP:AGF - no matter how much conflict you are in with an editor, much more often than not it's because both of you think that you're doing the right thing. Provided you bear that in mind, it is often easier to work through the problem - and this is especially true when working with new editors. That much I learned from the way User:LaraLove handled the delisting of Terry Wogan one of the first articles I tried editing thoroughly and the first I nominated for GA. I view that as a kind of conflict because I was quite offended/disheartened at the time because I was very new - and Lara took the time to explain point by point what was wrong and how to fix it. From that one review I learnt the most about policy and writing on Wikipedia, but I also learnt the lesson that we are all here to help each other and not to further our own agendas. Provided I remember that most editors here are here for the greater good, I should find it easy to cope with conflict, be it from established editors or otherwise.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Are there any Wikipedia articles that you stay away from because of conflict of interest concerns?

A: There aren't many, but there are a couple I avoid. I am a PhD student, and my field is on something rather specific within a field loosely described as Robotics and Automation. I avoid going anywhere near those specific articles (which I won't list for identity purposes) because my studies require that I form reasonably strong opinions about them. As a result, I could inadvertantly promote my line of thinking, my work, and therefore that of the company who sponsor my efforts (who don't have an article here, but whose contents/disputes I would also avoid) - it may seem trivial, but it is something I am aware of. I also don't touch the article on the University where I work, or the article of people that I work with. These things are as close to avoiding COI issues as I can get! Otherwise, everything seems fair game for constructive editing.

Optional Question from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

5 Do you believe that wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they interact with the community's normative culture, function more to facilitate social order within the community or more to promote editing quality? Do you believe either of these goals clash in practice? If so, how would you address this?
A: To the first part, I don't think that these are mutually exclusive, assuming that by "social order" you mean facilitating the building of consensus, civility, etc. If editors have a framework in which they can interact then the quality of editing to the encyclopaedia should improve. Without such a framework, we would risk losing editors, and if we lose editors, then the encyclopaedia loses out. Editing quality can, however, be compromised when a policy or guideline is enforced too specifically or literally by an editor or they ignore the need to be civil and communicate with each other. The two goals you describe thus clash only if the definition of a "quality edit" differs significantly between two editors. This can be addressed only by aiding a return to consensus-seeking, be that by talking to the editors concerned, suggesting compromises, in certain circumstances rephrasing the issues to ensure clarity, etc. I'm sorry if the answer here seems somewhat vague - in trying to answer this, I contemplated a series of scenarios, and I've written the common thread that I could think of. It goes without saying that I'm ok to answer a follow-up question if I've failed to satisfy you with this answer Fritzpoll (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. To give one of the many examples where they clash, sometimes for instance, because of policies such as WP:Consensus and WP:Edit war (and how they are received in normative wiki-culture) it is difficult (in practice impossible) to enforce other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:Verifiability because of the demographic balance on certain articles, particularly articles which attract users solely on wikipedia to promote an agenda contrary to the former policies. You have said users need a framework. Sure, ok, they have one already. Do you think this framework can be improved, and how? Irrespective of your answer, this will be the last follow-up question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is founded on the principle of "anyone can edit", which is a brilliant idea and core to the project. At the same time, the only way I can see to alter the existing framework would be to impose further rules and restrictions on the community, which would make the project daunting for new (and a lot of existing) editors. The one thing that could be done is to try to amend the process of reviewing pages. At present, most of the focus is on FA and (to a lesser extent) GA, but most articles are not in these categories and the reason, in part, that groups of POV-pushers are able to "hijack" an article (I want a better word here, but can't think of one) is that the articles aren't looked at by neutral editors very often, because we each edit according to our interest. An example of this is the article I recently worked on, Robert F. Kennedy assassination - the article was 67Kb in size, and the overwhelming majority was conspiracy-based, including a lengthy piece of OR inserted by an SPA. The article had been tagged for a long time for cleanup, but not looked at. Now this isn't meant to be a "Fritzpoll saved the day" tale, because that's not how Wikipedia works - I followed links through to the main Robert F. Kennedy article, and this has been tagged for some time as well. There are a vast number of these articles in this condition and it will be a community effort to get them out of this state.
I think the framework in which we edit is actually as good as it needs to be (although such things always need tweaking from time to time), but I think that there needs to be some way of encouraging editors to seek out and cleanup these articles on a scale not currently being done. This might be possible through enhancing the roles of Wikiprojects, where communities of editors interested in a broad subject area can watch articles, but I can't answer your question in terms of precise implementation. The best place to start would have to be with the community at large. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Zginder

6 What do you believe is the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
A: I agonised between WP:CIVILITY, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP, and all because without them, to a greater or lesser extent, there would be a risk to the project. With most other policies/guidelines, I can imagine these three allowing the encyclopaedia to be well-built - albeit perhaps a little bit more slowly as there would be no pre-discussed general guidance to work from. The BLP one can probably be discarded from the list, since, as a legal risk to the project, I imagine that consensus could be reached rapidly if not immediately to remove it. And whilst it's very important to be civil in all walks of life, the most fundamental thing about Wikipedia is the principle of editing by consensus and WP:CONSENSUS gives a framework for how to implement this ideal. Bit of a roundabout answer, but it needed more than a simple policy link!

Optional questions from MBisanz

7. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
A. The list I'm not very familiar with includes granting IP-exempt, granting Account Creator, bulk rollback, editing the Mediawiki namespace, and I'm not sure (and not able to assess from the linked pages) what "unthrottled" refers to. Naturally, I can now claim to have read these over the past 24 hours, but that would violate the spirit of the question. As to the others, whilst I obviously haven't been thoroughly involved in all of them, I've spent a lot of time reading at AN/I, AN, and have variously seen some of these issues come up so I have become familiar with them as I've tried to understand what people are talking about.
8. What is your opinion on ((User recovery))?
A. The sentiment of the template is what I was alluding to in my first question. This is particularly true of articles that are (probably speedy) deleted for failing to make an assertion to notability or something, simply because the editor wasn't aware of what exactly needed doing. The only problem with the template is that I think I'd want to engage in a bit more dialogue with an editor who made such a request, to make sure that they understand why it was deleted to start with. I'd also be wary of handing over the text of an article deleted by AfD. With CSD and PROD, generally, at most three people are involved (author, tagger, deleting admin) and because they handle non-controversial deletions this is ok. AfD, however, is a community process and if there was a consensus to delete an article, there would need to be a good reason to restore the text. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't consider it. Anyway, to answer the question directly, I agree with some of the sentiment in the template, but I don't think it can necessarily be as simple as "I want it" => "You have it" so I wouldn't personally transclude this, but would consider requests on a case-by-case basis.

'Questions from The Transhumanist:

9: Why do you believe you will make a good admin?
A. A good admin is probably defined in a similar way to a good editor - someone who uses the tools at their disposal in the best way possible to improve the encyclopaedia be it content correction, reverting/reporting vandalism, working in dispute resolution, etc. The places where tools are used by an editor may vary, but a good editor will always use them to improve the encyclopaedia. I like to think that I am a good editor, and with extra buttons, some of the improvements in content that I would like to make will be easier. With my definition of a good admin in mind, I obviously believe I would translate into a good admin - I guess RfA is about other contributors taking their admin definitions and seeing how a candidate measures up to them!
10: What are your WikiPhilosophies?
A. Oh boy, that page is long. I appear to be the following: A moderate eventalist, a moderate anti-statusquoist, lying somewhere between Communityism and Encyclopedism, a communalist, a rehabilist, strongly leaning towards being a wikipacifist, adopting the community view of neutrality and lying between semi- and anti-factionalism. If I missed any out, give me a shout, and likewise if you'd like any clarification on any of these. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
A. I think I covered a lot of this in my follow-up answer to Q5. The problem is one of content, and the fact that although as a community we edit an entire encyclopaedia, in practice we individually edit a tiny slice of it (except users like Blofeld of SPECTRE who seem to have created vast chunks of it!). Consequently, some editors are drawn to topics purely to push their own points of view - something I have observed at Wikiproject Physics, and briefly dealt with in conjunction with other editors over User:Keshe theory. There is no simple answer to this - you can't compell other editors to go and look at other articles, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. So I have no answer to the problem, but instead suggest that it is something where, if people felt it was an issue worth trying to settle, I could help facilitate a discussion. Individually, I can go and check up on as many articles I can and help out - this is one of the reasons I would like the buttons, as it would allow me to help out at Special:UnwatchedPages (see question 1).
12: Let's say you are an admin, and a user starts treating you specifically in a very incivil manner, regularly. Would you personally block him? If not, what would you do?
A. No. If necessary, I would ask a neutral admin to assess if a block was appropriate and allow them to block if necessary. If an editor is being incivil to me specifically on a regular basis, then I am an involved party, am obviously going to take it personally, and shouldn't use admin tools to "gain the upper hand" in dispute of this kind.


Optional question from Filll
13. Please answer, in essay form, two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. If you choose to answer this question, please provide a link to the responses here so people can ponder your responses.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

You know, this is just another example of blatant editcountitis. That is a major trend at RFAs that needs to be stopped. besides, you have been around for a year (as had I--before I created this account in January) and that's plenty enough experiance for me. You are not the typical Wikipedian nowadays: spends most of their time reverting vandalism and making 5,000 edits to AIV and AFD, 200% edit summary usage, and very little encyclopedia building in order to grab some admin tools and fluff their way through RFA. You certainly have no poer hungry issues here, you simply want to help Wikipedia with a few more tabs. I think I saw something (correct me if I'm wrong) that said that 1 in 5 edits are reverting others edits.I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To label valid concerns "blatant editcountitis" is a little bad faithed, in my opinion. There have been comments expressed with regards to this brought up below, and hence the creation of this further discussion. I think 2007 represents a period where Fritzpoll learnt not that much about Wikipedia, to be honest. There was, what, 500+ edits? I know when I had that many, I was still 'talking' to only a couple of users and didn't know much about the administration of Wikipedia, including: blocking, protecting etc, since, primarily, I was an editor. From looking at FPs first edits it looks like he was the same. I also think it is a little naïve to suggest that because we (at least three are in the third section) are going neutral, note not opposing, on the base of edit counts shows two things: 1) we do accept that Fritzpoll has good editing abilities, and has demonstrated this throughout his edits on, for example, the Robert F. Kennedy assassination page 2) I, personally, don't like users with high edit counts, that have multiple, multiple, reports to AIV, only serve as 'revert-bots' and stick a nice big notice/warning on anon's or VOAs three or four times every minute. That doesn't show that you can handle the tools of adminship, it doesn't show you can apply discretion, it doesn't demonstrate that you can effectively contribute to the main purpose of the wiki (which is to edit articles, not talk pages) or even show that these sort of editors can produce a relationship that is in touch with the community. By reverting, applying different levels of warnings it, in my eyes, doesn't suggest or even indicate a capacity that is able to cope with responsibility. It only shows one factor, and we need more than this to determine a candidate at RfA. Hence the recent failings of some RfAs with candidates that has conducted such editing patterns. I would much rather see a candidate with article experience, activity in areas such as UAA etc, engaging with others at ANI, AN or on their respective talk pages, and other wiki (such as Meta) participation. Only that can show that a person is dedicated to all aspects, which, as an administrator, we should be. (I'd also like to note, I do feel that Fritzpoll is on the right path, but just needs a little more time, if that had not been conveyed in my neutral below). Rudget (Help?) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I hadn't noticed Editorofthewiki's reply to my comment until I saw Rudget's reply. Everyone has various standards at RfA for a candidate (I said as much in answering a question above) and should judge candidates based on those standards, be they to do with edit counts or not. My comment was more to do with highlighting why my edit count was lower than it possibly ought to be (prompted by Blofeld being "surprised" in his support comment) to enable a complete assessment of my contributions. Given that we all have differing standards, we are bound to come to differing conclusions (otherwise no RfA would have any neutrals, and 100% support/oppose) and I can't see any rationale on this page that I don't understand - hopefully, we can just agree that the !voters on this page have differing standards for adminship and leave it at that? :-) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to that. Apologies for the lengthy read. Rudget (Help?) 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - my comments weren't only directed at you :) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Nom support. This one's a "duh". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Keeper's and my nom. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I can't see any problems here. Arguments with Baseball Bugs are practically a requirement for adminship, not a disqualification. — iridescent 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I'm seeing a lot of quality in a sampling of the candidate's contribs, and the RFK article is quite good indeed. I'm satisfied that this candidate will be a good admin and a net positive to the project. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Looks like a great user. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I'm not even going to look at the contribs for this one; Keeper's nom is simply sublime. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A fine editor. Keepscases (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Glad to support Per answer to Q4. Knowing what to keep away from is more important than the contrary, and per WP:N/CA talk page shows great civility and content building. Impressive. Prashanthns (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per good answers and a good nom from someone I trust. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definitely a net plus for the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No problems here :) Pedro :  Chat  15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Excellent, well rounded candidate who will obviously use the tools well - Good choice. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - No problems with this candidate, as far as I can tell. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support in addition to the Eve Carson AfD, I ran into Fritz during his proposal for this guideline. He saw an issue that needed to be addressed within Wikipedia and started a discussion on how to fix it. Wikipedia is not perfect and it's part of all of our 'jobs' to do what we can to improve it. Fritz does this and I see no issues in his contributions that would make me hesitate to support him as an admin TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Questions and contributions look fine to me. --CapitalR (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support- I dont see any risk of abuse. Qb | your 2 cents 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- It's always wonderful to see a good nominator with under 3000 edits. All these supports prove that it is quality and not quantity that counts! Well done and good luck! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support -- Intelligent answers, worthwhile contributions, "plays well with others"; I expect this individual to use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - from what I've seen appears to be a capable editor and familiar with the technical side of wikipedia. Am certain he would use the admin tools to the full benefit of wikipedia. I'm a little surprised however his edit count isn't higher. But for anybody with technical abilites such as Fritz has admin tools would be very useful to him and this webiste. Best of luck! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Looks good every which way I look. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support While I (for once) agree with Kurt Weber, you have shown dedication to creating the FritzpollBot to create stubs on places that Wikipedia ignores. If you have the programming capability and willingness to undergo such a massive task, then I don't see why we can't and shouldn't sysop you. I for one could care less about all this editcountitis. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While a large edit count cannot be used as an indicator of qualifications, the lack of edits can be a strong indicator os a lack of experience.Balloonman (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. You obviously put a lot of thought in your contributions, and your dedication to consensus-building on that really dicey topic really says a lot to me. Seems like an excellent admin candidate to me. ~ mazca talk 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Will be an asset at AfD and other deletion areas. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support He believes in consensus, what else is there to say? Zginder 2008-05-20T22:04Z (UTC)
  26. Support Trust the nom.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support with one hundred percent certainty. He knows his way around wikipedia, know the policies and guidelines, and contributes on the talk pages. To my knowledge, this editor has never been so problematic that he cannot be trusted. Good show. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support -- Looks good to me. He's ready for the mop. --SharkfaceT/C 00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support User knows their way through Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support. Silently trolled Keeper's talk page the other night, saw this coming up, looked through user's contribs and was impressed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support Of all the editors I've bumped into around the wiki, Fritzpoll is definitely one of the most enjoyable to work alongside - he's rational, welcoming, helpful and on top of that a bloody nice guy too. Seaserpent85 10:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Contribs reveal a thoughtful and serious editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs) diff
  35. Support On the basis of good and thoughtful answers to questions, & having the right attitude towards improvement. I think he's learned from the batch of careless AfDs. Judging the likelihood of further improvement is always a little impressionistic, but I have a favorable impression here. DGG (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good, honest, and thought out question answers. MBisanz talk 16:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No reason for concern, candidate will be very beneficial to the project as an admin. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support Seems like a good contributer here to wikipedia. According to his/her answers, this user fully understands the tools and won't misuse them. Regards, RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, per my normal reasons for this type of candidate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, no problems. Wizardman 00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support like his answer to Q9. Vishnava(talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Supoort Wouldn't abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 11:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I personally liked the answers that you provided to Q9, Q11, and Q12. They show that you have the thoughtfulness and ability to help others. I believe that your answers to Q5 and Q6 show that you have good understanding of the relevant polices and guidelines that administrators need to know in order to do the job right. The answer to Q7 leaves me a little shaken, but I don't believe that it is necessary for an administrator to know how to edit the MediaWiki namespace. Cheers, Razorflame 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Meets my only 2 personal criteria, respect for consensus and civility with others. Mop on. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support seems to be a good guy. If his proposed bot will be approved the admin tools might be handy Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support overall a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Light on edits, maybe, but strong on ability; Keeper's nom makes a compelling case. Eusebeus (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, no reason to believe user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  51. Support. Rami R 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support. I've been coaching him a bit. Fritzpoll did a wonderful job cleaning up Robert F. Kennedy assassination, which is now a good article candidate. I was expecting trouble with that article, but Fritzpoll fixed it up and nicely worked out any disagreements via the talk page. He's demonstrated very strong editorial skills and the ability to work with others. I am confident he will be a fine administrator. Jehochman Talk 01:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - One of his admin coaches speaks highly of him and believes he will make a good admin. Good enough for me. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - He'll be a good admin and I'm very impressed with the contributions. I know some people say that running a bot is irrelevant, but he has shown his commitment to the encyclopedia with the outstanding FritzpollBot. EJF (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - candidate's adminship will benefit the encyclopedia. — Athaenara ✉ 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - per my criteria --Chetblong (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - nothing wrong with this candidate - has dabbled in all the right areas. In depth, thoughtful answers to the questions. Lradrama 09:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, per quality, not quantity! WikiZorrosign 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, superb responses to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's concerns. Mallanox 13:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: I like people that believe in following policy, and, in respect to notability and AFD behaviour, I also believe in the old saying that you can judge a man by his enemies. Kww (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Al Tally talk <-- passed with barely four months activity. People who clearly haven't bothered to look at the candidate's edits, but just the quantity should be banned from RfAs imo. Some people are ready for adminship within 2 weeks. Get over your silly time-countitis and editcountitis, and actually review whether the editor would make a good admin or not. If you can't/won't do that, please do everyone a favour and stop voting here. Al Tally talk 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just can't pass this opportunity up... and you need more proof </friendly sarcasm>Balloonman (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, quite obviously, opposes like yours I refer to here. Al Tally talk 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Looks great!!! Tiggerjay (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - everything looks good here.   jj137 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, good editor. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Four months is easily enough time. Acalamari 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, appears to be a capable editor with no indication he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Editor has demonstrated they possess The Clue. Daniel (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien) (how could it not satisfy Wikipedia:FICTION, which is only "a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process"?), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson (too exclusive interpretation of inclusion criteria), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global (on one hand I commend him from revisiting the disucssion and changing his stance, on the other hand it's nice when editors make the attempt to improve the article themselves first). That's not to say he isn't nice, but I just question some of these arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (about AfD/Derelict) To be fair, an assertion that something fails specified rules is completely separate from whether those "specified rules" are an accepted policy/guideline or merely proposed (plus, how else is something to move from "proposed" to "accepted" if it isn't utilized?). Besides, the article was deleted, so it's not like Fritzpoll was way out there with his opinon. I'd say his participation in that AfD is fairly spot-on for an admin candidate, and I daresay that I probably would have said the same thing had I been around for it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the deletion was entirely correct, however, and have indicated as much. But in any case there are more than those listed above: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniModal (2nd nomination) (argues to merge and delete, which is illegal per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Max (2nd nomination) (nominated article overwhelmingly closed as keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonderland Online (nominated article that closed as speedy keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shum Lung (no consensus to delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhe Zeng (argued to delete, but closed as keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A More Perfect Union (argued to delete/merge, but closed as keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Wu (argued to delete, no consensus close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie and the Diamond Castle (first to argue delete in discussion that closed as keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kramer (presenter) (argued to delete, but kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CampusJ (nominated, but kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Source of the river of Svijaga (nominated, but kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Exposure Upper Jurassic adjournment on the right coast Kuibyshev of a water basin (nominated but kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (UNMIK) (nominated, but declared “wrong forum“), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akshuat's dendropark (nominated with no one else arguing to delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998 in chess (another withdrawn nom), etc. Moreover, out of scores of AfDs in which the candidate participated, I only identified maybe a half dozen or less in which he argued to keep or merge. I did not want to pile on examples initially as the candidate does seem reasonably friendly, but if it clarifies why I oppose then please also consider these examples. So many withdrawn nominations reflect either a lack of working to improve the articles first or an overly exclusive interpretation of our inclusion policies as does the overwhelming tendency to argue to delete and it is important that admins are balanced or neutral. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, some of those were incorrect nominations. Some of it to do with a lack of clarity that I suffered from earlier on at AfD, some of them the context of the debate changed in flight. For example at Barbie and the Diamond Castle, the author had created two articles each stating that it was "probably" the title of a "probable" film (can't remember the name of the other film...but I nommed that one and it was deleted) and during the AfD, the film was properly announced, hence why I changed my position. A few of these I can look at and remember the context behind the problems (three of them were the same single mistake - same author, same problem!). I don't see it as a bit deal being the wrong side of a debate, provided I got my message across and understood what the other position was. With the greater number of deletes vs. keeps, it's simply bad luck for me! I try to avoid commenting on AfDs where a clear consensus exists, and with articles that should be kept I've found that they are already commented on - it's just random that of the set of remaining AfDs I happen to agree with the nomination more often than disagree.
    On the other hand, you'd have to take that on faith, and that part is entirely up to you. But thank you for taking the time to let me know your reasoning Fritzpoll (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reasonable reply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose — Individual incorrectly believes so-called "policies", "guidelines", "standards", etc. to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, Kurt - you are at least partly right in relation to some of our policies, and I always like the consistency of your philosophy on RfA and elsewhere, even if I don't always agree Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But if it does not affect the application of such policies, does it really matter? —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – Let’s start at the beginning – A grand total of only 2,832 edits gathered over just 4 months here at Wikipedia. Not a lot of experience to really gauge qualifications. Let me put it another way, would the average individual give any other individual the powers to censor what I write – Ban me from contributing – or delete a contribution, after only knowing you for 4 months. I know I won’t. In addition, I have concerns about your precipitation concerning policy. I reviewed the Discussion Page you referenced in Question #2, and must say that I do not believe we had a real consensus with regards to your changes. However, I will leave that opinion for the other editors to decide on their own. ShoesssS Talk 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to reply to the last point about the consensus for the changes made to the article. The article was tagged for cleanup and on the talkpage there were several discussions indicating that the page was "full of errors" and "unsourced" (these are in the talk page archive). Once I'd completed my changes to it, I summarised what I had done on the talk page to invite comment, which then led to further changes by myself and other editors. Finally, I made a request for comment to assess the balance of the article in relation to conspiracy theories so that there was a wider perspective, given concerns that the alternative theories were not adequately represented. Whilst I admittedly did not preempt my rewrite with a lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article, I believed that the uncontested tags and the existing discussion indicated sufficient consensus to make them, considering that elements could always be restored/rewritten by other editors. I accept, however, that you may not personally feel this was enough, but I wanted to clarify these points. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if he's only made 2,832 edits in 4 months? I've made almost 6,000 edits in 2 months, so I really don't see how this shows that he has a lack of experience on this site. Travellingcarli was just promoted under the grounds that she had only 4 months of experience, yet nobody is complaining about a lack of experience there. Cheers, Razorflame 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ral315 was promoted with almost the exact same amount of edits and months service, but noone has ever complaiend about him.--Phoenix-wiki 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When Ral was promoted, there were slightly different guidelines on what criteria admin candidates should fill. Relatively low edit count admins were common since the wiki was still only in its infant stages. Rudget (Help?) 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't really make sense, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. There were never any guidelines, people were just much more easy going back then, everyone knew that things could be undone, people are forgetting that nowadays. Low edit count admins are fine, the only reason people don't like them is because everybody now has ultra high edit counts with the aid of scripts and what not.--Phoenix-wiki 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PW, I think you're missing the main point. And also, I think that this particular candidate has already expressed that he understood the mentality of those opposed/neutral. I kindly request that you (and others) just let the opinions stand without the battle. Thanks, and happy editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the main point I'm missing? Discussion is a good thing, and you haven't said anyhting about any point. Everyone should be accountable for their comments.--Phoenix-wiki 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shoessss, firstly, administrators cannot ban users from editing Wikipedia – this responsibility lies with ArbCom, Jimbo and the WMF. Secondly, Rudget, surely edit counts should be guaged against the age of the user's account, not on the age of the wiki? Just because the wiki was younger then, doesn't mean that contributors were any less active or hard-working. I agree that RfA standards in this area have increased, though. haz (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I like the idea for the bot on the user page. However I feel this user is too reliant on the text of notability guidelines rather than our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose While I do realize that this RfA is probably going to pass and that Fritz has made some quality edits, I keep going back to the fact that he has fewer than 3500 edits and 4 months of activity. Six months experience really isn't asking for much---it should be longer than that---but 4 months is too short.Balloonman (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ral315 was promoted with almost the exact same amount of edits and months service, but noone has ever complaiend about him.--Phoenix-wiki 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And others have been promoted with even less time/experience.... your point?Balloonman (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm trying to say is that you can have relativly inexperienced candidates who do fine jobs, so I don't think you need to worry about him.--Phoenix-wiki 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what you are trying to do is make the same argument that has been discounted a number of times. Just because Other stuff exists doesn't make for a good argument. There have been admins who have been promoted after a very short time period, that does not mean that it serves as a good barometer of future candidates. In fact, ever hear that the exceptions prove the rule? The fact remains that in many circles of Wikipedia, people are critical of the process. Right now, the fact that people can come on board and after only a few months be granted the capacity to block or delete experienced editors is being criticized elsewhere. Six months of experience is NOT enough time to garner enough experience or a track record to really see how a potential candidate will handle different situations. It is NOT enough time to get a broad enough understanding of Wikipedia as a whole. And here we are trying to justify passing a person after only 4 months. I have no doubt that Fritz WILL make a fine admin, I just think that day should be down the road not right now.Balloonman (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose A little inexperienced, and four months isn't enough time for any potential character flaws to be exposed. Epbr123 (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose A great contributor but too short a track record for me to adequately judge your suitability for the buttons. A solid six months of continuous recent activity is my bare minimum. Polly (Parrot) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - 2,000 or so edits over a period of only a few months is not enough for me to judge whether making you an admin would be a wise idea. asenine say what? 06:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ral315 was promoted with almost the exact same amount of edits and months service, but noone has ever complaiend about him.--Phoenix-wiki 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines say that just because one thing happens in one instance, does not mean it should happen in another. A fresh consensus should be gathered. asenine say what? 16:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally do not believe many editors can "fake" being thoughtful, constructive and civil for nearly 3,000 edits. Of course, there was User:Archtransit, but even then, we dealt with the problem right away and no serious damage was done (except for my formerly pristine block log). I think we need to be open and welcoming, and not let exceptional cases ruin things for the vast majority of good faith editors. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Satisfys the number of edits I require by a long shot, but 4 months isn't enough, things happen slowly on Wikipedia, and experience happens even slower. 6 months plus at least I'd say. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you mean 6 months of continuous editing - otherwise, I'm AOK! Fair enough - I explained the absence below (in the neutral section), but can appreciate your reasoning. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did mean continous yeah, like I said, things happen slowly, and the only way you can get real experience from big issues, like arbcoms etc is to be there from start to finish, and lets face it Admins need to be able to handle big issues, give it another couple of months of regular editing and you can count on my vote, like I said, your actual work (i.e. edit count, etc) is fine by my standards. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. As I've said continuously, I respect all the standards being applied here Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although looking at the current tally, I don't think you'll be needing another vote :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 13:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral While it is nice to see that Keeper has FINALLY nominated a quality candidate ;-) I can't quite pull myself to support. You've only been actively editing for 4 months and have fewer than 3000 edits. Those two factors alone, IMHO, indicate a lack of experience that would normally garner an oppose. But I am impressed with your contributions otherwise, thus am neutral.Balloonman (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point (and I'll ignore the allcaps part of your sentence...although it's probably more insulting to my other noms than it is to me:-), is that his edit count, when counting deleted contributions, is just short of 3500. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you had to go point out that you do have quality candidates ;-) Balloonman (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. In May/June last year, I started editing , but in July there was an illness/death in the family. This isn't to sway your !vote - I'm mostly commenting because I think the sudden drop in my contributions over those months does look quite bizarre! Nonetheless, I respect your criteria for a candidate, and won't comment on this point again Fritzpoll (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, sorry to hear about the loss. But I still can't quite bring myself to support. I do like to see more edits and a longer track record, but your contributions elsewhere are enough to keep me from opposing.Balloonman (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't know, Keeper nominated another candidate a few months ago, whom I strongly opposed for lack of experience similar to Fritzpoll's. I later, through the course of co-coaching learned that the candidate was qualified and probably should have passed---thus my jab at Keeper, because he had nominated two quality candidates despite lack of experience. ;-) I just can't support.Balloonman (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Tan shoulda passed, but for Fritz, who you find to be very similar, you're neutral? Does that mean you'll be neutral on Tan's RfA#2 as well? As co-nominator? Sorry to beat the horse here a bit, I'm finding this all rather hysterical :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my new practice of not !voting on my noms until the end, you'll have to wait and see ;-) Balloonman (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. With respect to what Balloonman said, I couldn't agree further. I understand there are relatively wide-ranging opinions on this: from what counts as an edit, and whether even those who do have high edit counts, do truly contain an intimate and coherent knowledge of wiki policies. Furthermore, however, I don't see the candidate in question working in that diverse an area, and I am slightly offput by the nominators focus on one event to characterise a single individual. We just can't do that, albeit it is often the way if that event has put a negative perspective to a nominee. I am also slightly concerned that the editor has made several areas as potential targets for involvement, but has little to no experience here – at least going by Kate's Tool. In terms of hard evidence to go netural, possibly this application of a G3 tag (which actually removed the content of the page prior to the edit), should really have known to redirect at this deletion discussion, withdrew this after personal mistakes about checking sources et al. However, I do see good work otherwise, so I stay neutral, until, at least, there is an oppose which could be of significance. Rudget (Help?) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify what one event you are talking about? I may further comment on your talk. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eve Carson AfD. Rudget (Help?) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, because I can't see it, I have a recollection of that brilliant scenario when I tagged an article as vandalism, as it was being deleted meaning that it got recreated and then (presumably) deleted again - I think this was the case with Ace the dog, but I'm not 100% sure - obviously can't look at the article to check. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral : I dont think big edit counts means better quality as a Wikipedian. But less than 3K edits in 1.5 years ? Most of the edits are in last 4 months. My personal opinion is that he needs more experience and gain more trust in the community. Keep up the good work but as Admin , may be you should try again -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, including my deleted edits (which are over 600) it's more like 3500 edits, and it's only been 13 months. I also mention one of the reasons the edit count appears lower in the discussion section above. That said, I do respect your opinion, and the edit count may still not be high enough for your standards - I just wanted to clarify the exact number and length of time Fritzpoll (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral While I can not find any major problems with this candidate that would lead me to oppose, I can not vote support, due to my standards for adminship. If the community's consensus is to support, I have all the respect in the world, but I can not offer my vote at this time. Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 02:32, 23 May 2008 (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