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

TheFearow

[edit]

(27/17/9); Ended 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

TheFearow (talk · contribs) -

I have been an editor here for over a year, but I have not really started editing until the last several months. During that time, I have amassed 1.7K edits, and still counting. I am an active vandal-fighter, and I often do NP patrol. I have been focusing on many cleanup tasks, previously wikify, and now DEP.

I also run a bot, DeadBot, and I am currently under consideration to be a member of BAG (which is closing a bit late). I am also an admin on mw:, as mw:User:TheFearow, where I help out with importing etc. I also have a good knowledge of how MediaWiki works, and I am semi-active on bugzilla.

I am also an IRC regular, where I idle in most channels, however I am active in #wikimedia-tech and #mediawiki. Before anyone asks, I would not take any wiki-related discussions to IRC - at the very most if I needed to contact someone on IRC I would ask them to get invloved on-wiki. I do not believe IRC is the venue for any wiki discussions, especially because we have no proof of previous discussion - no logs can be taken.

Thank you everyone for considering my nomination, and no matter what the outcome, I will take any and all suggestions given to me seriously, and try to fix whatever I have done wrong.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to mainly help out with CSD, PER, AIV, and UAA. These are areas that often get a bit backlogged (I consider backlogged for csd to be any attack/nonsense/copyvio pages, or over 50 other pages, and backlog for aiv and uaa to be over 5 reports). I will also try to help out wherever is needed, such as DYK and other important or high-visibility templates that need constant updating.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I know I will get some opposers for this, but none of my mainspace edits. I can't write in the style needed for an encyclopedia. Apart from those, I would say my DEP contributions, and my contributions on mw:. On this wiki, I would have to say my vandal-fighting and NP patrol, as well as the DEP stuff mentioned above. I am also getting into templates, so I guess some of my templates could be considered good contributions.
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 have been in several conflicts, notably one about notability (what a coincidence), however that was a mistake of mine because I believed I had seen then on the evening news, infact it was a similairly named person. I also had a minor dispute on Camp Ramah in the Poconos because I believed it failed CSD A1. (I actually got tags mixed up, so it was partially my fault).

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support, not even moral. Experienced with wikis, willing to help out, and in an unappreciated timezone. I think a month is enough, and I know if he needs help doing something he's not familiar with, he can come and ask me (or any other admin). Also a sysop of mediawiki.org - he's not going to be abusing admin tools. Majorly (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - a bit moral. Keep up your hard work, like you did last month, and Im sure that, if this RFA doesnt pass, it will sometime in the future. Good luck! Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - That he is an administrator at mw:User:TheFearow, runs a bot, and has worked in Bugzilla shows me he has enough experience and I'm sure it will only help Wikipedia to give him adminship. And I'm sure he would do well in WP:CSD, WP:PER, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA. Tim Q. Wells 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Per no big deal and Tim above. ~ Wikihermit 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I recommended for Matt to make this request, and I stand by that recommendation despite some reservations about overall experience with deletions etc. He has shown a maturity and instinct far in advance of his one month of active editing, and his contributions - both human and automated - will continue to help Wikipedia for months if not years. I trust him as much as anyone to strive for a well-maintained encyclopedia. Shalom Hello 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - sensible guy, willing to help out, won't do anything stupid. I see that there is some merit to the comparison between the Wikipedia community and a cult. If this RfA fails, TheFearow will at least know which hoops he should jump through if he wants to be an admin in the future. GracenotesT § 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The only complaint you've been getting below is of requesting adminship prematurely – in a few months, if you keep the good stuff up you'll breeeeeze straight through this process (like last week, there was 3 or 4 successful RfAs in a row). Great editor, won't abuse the mop. (spebi · talk) 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support- Even though I take lack of experience as a serious concern, I've seen you around, and I think you would make a great admin. Eddie 13:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Timecountitis is even worse than editcountitis. 1700 edits is plenty of experience, especially if well-distributed across the namespaces. Waltontalk 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support While he has not been here very long, how many of us can make 1700 edits per month? Clearly a dedicated editor, who will not abuse the tools.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support is not a vandal thus meets my criteria for adminship --Fredrick day 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- One could gain a great understanding of policy in 6 months, and having an edit count that high in a short amount of time shows dedication to the project; I don't think 1700 edits is too low either. And just becuase his non-mainspace edits come out as the majority of his work doesn't mean he's unfit. We need different type of contributors for different tasks. Because this user has no major editing issues and has become an admin on another wiki already, I'd have to say I support. He's demonstrated both that he can be trusted and that he works hard.The Kensington Blonde T C 01:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support I've changed my mind for the better. Many people here on Wikipedia overlook mindset in the search for administrators, and hail the position like a prophet. In reality, no, you haven't been around here for years and years making endless amounts of edits...but you've made great edits and are on an excellent pace. You have demonstrated that you know what you're doing and know the policies. I made the mistake of applying for adminship long before I was ready. Although my quest continues, I see no reason why yours needs to. You're a great editor and wish you the best. See you when you get the mop. Ganfon 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. See no problems here. Matt, if you encounter anything you don't feel certain about, feel free to talk or e-mail me or any friendly admin, and we'll have you up to speed in no time. Chick Bowen 03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Majorly's reasoning. Acalamari 03:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support You are a great editor, you have my support. Davis160 14:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Trustworthiness is more important than knowledge of policy. No other significant concerns brought up by opposers. - TwoOars 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, per Majorly's reasoning. I trust this user. He's shown devotion to the project during his short time here and I'm hopeful that this devotion will live on no matter how this RfA comes out, as it is valuable to the encyclopedia. Good luck. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I do not find any oppose reasons too concerning to me, especially with "not enough experiance" votes, as none of the oppose votes really brings concern that by promoting this user to admin will somehow harm Wikipedia more than benefiting it, therefore I'm willing to Support, especially since this is a self-nomination. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I trust this user and have seen through some of the opposes, although it was an interesting debate. TheFearow is not on a power grab, or a cabalist, or someone who should not be trusted with the tools. But he should of course be watched for a while, as all sysops are when they get the mop. Somitho 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No reason no too. I don't understand a lot of the oppose votes. --Banana 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as above. Manderiko 23:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Low edit count, but user operates a bot. Still, knowledge is suggested by this. I will support. Captain panda 04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I've seen him around; no complaints. J-stan Talk 20:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Brief period of intense activity, but said activity is prodigious, and positive in nature. In looking through your contribs, I see consistency in, and dedication to counter vandalism. Likewise, the bot demonstrates the value of users who, as you mentioned, may not feel writing is their greatest available contribution. Good luck! Hiberniantears 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support User is committed to the encyclopedia, even with the lack of edits as demonstrated by the work on the bot etc Corpx 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support An edit count has no bearing on a specific user's contributions. It is mainly dedication, trust, and having good judgement. This user has those three traits. Furthermore, this RFA seems to be going in the direction of Krimpet's RFA, where that user didn't have as much edits as more experienced users. (→zelzany - review) 14:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I'm sorry, TheFearow, but I believe this is a premature request. Out of your 1500 edits, 1400 were made in June. You are on the right track, but this request is premature. As this is supposed to be helpful and constructive criticism, I'll give you a bit of advice. Firstly, try to get at least 3 to 4 months of solid, consisent work (it's the best timeline, IMO), with a total amount of edits at around 3000 for a "safe" request. You also need to show some need for tools, in most cases. Your administrative section you have most contributed to is WP:UAA, with 7 edits. See, if most of your edits were correct vandalism reverts, correct warnings, and a ton of reports to WP:AIV, I couldn't care less that you have 1500 edits; I'd care if you have less than 1000, because it doesn't show familiarity and knowledge of policy. These are some of the pointers I can think of... don't hesitate to ask me question, if you need to, or ask for more pointers, if you need them, because I believe you are on the right track, and you should become an admin in three months if continue at this pace. --Evilclown93(talk) 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I submitted this RFA because I read that adminship is not about whether the user will work, it's whether they can be trusted. I know that I have a low edit count, and I have only become active lately, however I don't believe that should affect your vote. Anyway, thanks for the comments, and I will take that into account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Evilclown. Sorry Matt, but he's right, at this pace in two months there's no way you'll fail an rfa.Ganfon 22:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Support.Ganfon 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, sorry. Premature RfA, more experience (and time) is needed in all areas.--Húsönd 22:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the same reasons that I have opposed your request to join the Bot approvals group. --After Midnight 0001 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I answered your concerns there, if that was not satisfactory tell me what other edits you are referring to and i'll answer those. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you did answer my question, but that doesn't mean that I like the answer. Your response to me was (paraphrasing): you had assumed that the block had expired, since other people were communicating with the user. I think that it is pretty clear that there was a heated discussion about unblocking on that user's talk page, and I question your preparedness for adminship if you didn't perceive that. The alternative in my mind is that you were not sufficiently thorough, which also does not speak well for you. Either was, I must oppose. --After Midnight 0001 03:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Sorry, but I'm concerned about lack of mainspace writing experience. Contributing fact-based material to articles is, after all, central to Wikipedia. Please, find a mentor, identify an article or two of interest and put pen to paper. That will prepare you for an adminship. Majoreditor 04:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hasn't gained enough Wikipedia experience to be an effective administrator at this juncture. Daniel 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose per the comment "Tor is banned on enwiki". An IP network cannot be banned, and whether Tor should even be blocked is a matter for heated debate at the present, so such an categorical statement is incorrect on two levels. I also endorse Nick below me, I can think of a number of reasons to oppose now. Daniel 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are taking a comment I made on IRC on a completely unrelated topic. I say banned, as we have a project to block all open proxies. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I'm sorry, but your time on wikipedia so far is short...6 months with 1500 edits. If you gain more experience, I think you will be fit for adminship. H irohisatTalk Page 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only been editing for around two months, so techincally its ~2 months 1500 edits. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strongish Oppose per the perceived power grab - was made a sysop on the Mediawiki wiki on 27th June 2007, requested a seat on the BAG last week and requests adminship here. Not comfortable giving this user adminship at this time, regardless of skill or experience. Nick 11:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Evilclown Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongly oppose — User is not interested in building an encyclopaedia.[1] Matthew 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So adding tags to Francis Travis means he doesn't want to build an encyclopedia? This is one of the stupidest reasons to oppose. ~ Wikihermit 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in building an encyclopedia - I am just terrible at writing in-depth. I can write, but I struggle to do anything but stubs. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew: to the contrary, this user created DeadBot (talk · contribs), which tags orphaned articles as orphaned. A couple of quirks need to be worked out, but the work TheFearow has put into the bot shows that he is dedicated to keeping articles in mainspace interconnected—one of the major things that makes Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, different from other encyclopedias that do not place so much emphasis on hypertext and cross-referencing.
    You may not be a big fan of bots that do nothing other than point out problems and expect users to fix them, but the problem in this case is difficult to locate by its nature; TheFearow should be commended for taking initiative to incorporate lonely articles into Wikipedia. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that RfA should judge a user's contributions to the encyclopedia (among other things), but it is not reasonable to dismiss certain contributions because they are less direct in improving Wikipedia than others, or discriminate against certain users because the gift of article-writing does not come as naturally to them as do other nonetheless useful abilities. GracenotesT § 22:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Without reinventing the wheel: I don't see how a few lines of code that take less than an hour to slap together is significant. This is an encyclopaedia, if you don't help with the encyclopaedia then you can't relate to editors. Matthew 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears as though you have not done much programming, or have stereotyped all programmers from your experience with one or two. Okay, then, you have your own standards. That's fine. If a user is unfit for adminship because of an apparent lack of direct article edits, that's one thing, but it certainly does not mean that he or she is not interested in building an encyclopedia, as you have claimed. GracenotesT § 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A few lines of code?! The total line count (including libraries) for accessing wikipedia and operating DeadBot is in the tens of thousands... There is 647 lines of code just for the DEP task, not including the lists of names. The IRC interface is 312 lines, not including the probably 2000+ lines for the IRC communications code. It takes 7 lines just to make a program say "Hello World". Try learning a programming language and coding something like this before commenting on how easy it is. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matt (Fearow), it is understandably nerve-racking when one's work is carelessly marginalized, but it is also important to stay calm. You've done that so far, but please keep it in mind.
    I think that it would be "good" for Matthew to learn a programming language or two, in the same way that it would be "good" for you to do more work on articles. One of those tasks is more important than the other, but both are needed. If both of you don't want to be in the other's shoes, then why not agree to disagree, without using RfA votes? GracenotesT § 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently trying to do more work on articles, and I would not oppose him based on lack of programming. I do agree that programming is not the most important on a wiki, but neither is aticle writing. Without cleanup, vandalfighting, and all those other processes, our content would be terrible. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you sum it up nicely: IRC Bot. The encyclopaedia is the most important thing at Wikipedia, not playing a game of wiki politics. I'm switching my opinion to strong oppose based on your severe hostility. Secondly, this is not a vote (as you called it below). Matthew 09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an IRC bot - it's a wikipedia bot that can be run via IRC. I want to build an encyclopedia, and I help in any way I can. Also, the comments above I may have seemed angry as I do get annoyed when people fail to appreciate weeks of hard work trying to build something to help. I apologise for not being civil - I did not mean to be and if I came off that way I sincerely apologise. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew, IRC is nothing more than a telnet-like many-to-many TCP/IP data-sending protocol that uses ircd software provided by one or more servers; in this case, freenode's. I'm sure you know that bots can be run as command line, yes? (If not, pywikipediabot is a good example.) TheFearow has chosen to change the interface of the bot from running on a command line to running on IRC. This makes it more "open" (since we are predominantly an open source community) by constructively using IRC protocol rather than Java's System.out and System.in i/o streams. (There are quite a few very useful bots that use IRC in the same matter that his does; have no FUD about it.) Anyone can watch what TheFearow's bot is doing without bloated on-wiki logs, and trusted Wikipedians can ask the bot to make queries. Not "trusted" as in those who have special political "connections", but anyone who wants to help and can do so, or failing the second, is willing to learn how. No politics or hostility is involved, other than that which you disingenuously introduce. Now, perhaps you'll take a moment to see why the same logic applies to this RfA. GracenotesT § 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not why you're explaining to me what IRC is, etc. I couldn't care what his bot does, or even how long it took him to create it — frankly I see few contributions to the encyclopaedia, that is what I care about. Feel free to continue showing off, though... but don't make an assumption that I don't understand. Matthew 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should put heavy contributions to mainspace in the back of your mind for fifteen (ten?) seconds, and consider the importance of a healthy environment for collaboration between people who have different skills, but the same willingness to create and maintain a free-content encyclopedia. Perhaps you should consider why you're working against that environment. Undoubtedly you will continue to blindly press on towards your Encyclopaedia by not only building it, but by tearing down everything else that doesn't look exactly like it. What a pity. GracenotesT § 05:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop being a dick Matthew. He wasn't being hostile. I noticed you never !vote support; you only ever oppose. ~ Wikihermit 06:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Lack Of Experience, Dosnt Seem To Require Admin Tools. HarryMaxwell (Highlights|Contribs) 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has ~107 edits... Majorly (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And - i say this is complete, 100% speculation - nothing against black harry (unless there is, if you see my point) - this guy Harry Maxwell: his signature is all but ditto to black harry's... Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I was wrong to say that. Struck. Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:HarryMaxwell was indefinitly blocked for being a sock-puppet of another indef blocked user, neither of which is affiliated with me. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Just too little experience overall. Needs more time around the project discovering, exploring, and editing before the tools should be given. Jmlk17 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Evilclown, and Nick Dureo 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. This user has only really been active for a month - that isn't in my opinion enough time for someone to establish the necessary experience and trust to be an admin. And, although it isn't the basis for my opinion here, it may also set a bad precedent in terms of making it simply too easy to get socks through RfA if candidates can pass so soon. I do share the concerns expressed about the number of positions applied for so soon and in such a short period of time. WjBaway 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - you have't been active long enough to show you can be trusted. Edit count goes out of the window for me, it doesn't matter, provided you have shown to understand policy and need the tools - come back again in 2-3 months. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. RFA is in danger of becoming about who can make friends in some chat room. This is the opposite of what we want. If you want to spend your time chatting with Wikipedians, this is your choice of course but it counts for nothing on-wiki, despite what a lot of people apparently want. Friday (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do chat online - I like to talk to people. As I have said, I am against using IRC to discuss policy etc. I use IRC as I prefer chatting to wikipedians in real time, rather than via user talk pages etc. It is almost always off-topic. Also, I do a lot of stuff on-wiki, I have huge amounts of time and I am always looking for things to do. I have much more spare time than most wikipedians, so I do a lot of on-wiki stuff as well. I do not expect using IRC or such to impact my activeness on wikipedia. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Sorry, I just don't think you have experience. Politics rule 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I'm not confident that you have sufficient experience outside of technical matters to be an Administrator. --Michael Billington (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I think you have the right approach and skills to be an administrator, but I just don't think your time here is long enough. Ideally, most people look for around 1½-2 years experience and 3000+ edits. Perhaps try again in a few months when most people get the idea that you have improved on your edit count and experience. Kind regards, E talk 10:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One and a half to two years? Are you serious? – Gurch 10:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1.5-2 YEARS? If everyone absed their votes on that criteria, we would only have a quarter of the number of admins, and about half as many crats. If there are crats with less than that, I don't think it should be a requirement for RFA. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm sorry but I think more epxerience is needed before re-running for RfA, I think you're definitely on the right track and you being an admin at Mediawiki is certainly a step in the right direction but for the minute — I suggest withdrawing this RfA and continuing to improve yourself. All the best. Qst 11:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After a few months of consistent activity, I would be delighted to support. Riana (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I'm not really comfortable opposing or supporting. Both parties make good points. However, 1½ - 2 years is absolutely absurd. Cool Bluetalk to me 12:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - While I appreciate your length of time on the project, it seems you only really got heavily into editing last June. I do not think that you are not editing in good faith, but normally I like to see a candidate with at least three months of editing with regular contributions in a diverse area to demonstrate their knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies/guidelines. I hope you continue editing and hope to see you here again in three - four months. --Ozgod 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I will not oppose as there is evidence that another body believed you trustworthy with the mop, but I feel there is a difference between being confident that you won't abuse the tools and trusting you to use them appropriately in a different environment. I would support a subsequent RfA after a month or two of further contributions. LessHeard vanU 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral 3K edits, 2 months, and I'll support. Great work with the bot, but a bit more experience would be nice. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Perhaps with a few months more of activity. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - strong enough candidate not to out-and-out oppose; too short a period of time to prove experience and trustworthiness (both of which can, I am confident, be established in another, say, 2 months at the same level of participation) ck lostsword•T•C 23:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category