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

The Transhumanist[edit]

Final (4/23/8) Ended 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) – I'm fairly familiar with Wikipedia, and would like to be of more help if I can. I've been around for just over a year, and have posted a fairly detailed list of activities I've been involved with on my user page. I'm currently taking a break from list building and their maintenance, and have been working on user namespace projects lately, but plan to get back into the main namespace soon. The works with which I've been involved in and am most proud of include the Main Page redesign, the creation of the Community Bulletin Board, the Wikipedia:Department directory, Wikipedia:Tip of the day, Wikipedia:Contents and the pages on the Template:Contents pages (header bar), and the various Lists of basic topics. Though I can't claim sole credit for any of these, as others either contributed in various ways before, during, or after. My contribution hasn't always been completely smooth, as I'm far from perfect, and I have had my share of blemishes, the worst of which was an RfC last spring (a link is provided on my user page), but in the months that have followed, I've been striving to follow policy, help others, and as always to improve Wikipedia, though now I'm much more focused on teamwork and on finding mutally agreeable solutions. I will continue to do my best and further improve, whether handed the mop or not. The Transhumanist 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly submit my request for adminship. The Transhumanist 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I could help with a little bit of everything, but would mostly deal with whatever problems I come across or discover. In my work on Wikipedia's help system, the Wikipedia:Department directory, and the tip of the day project, I've come to understand Wikipedia's operations pretty well (and how everything here relates to everything else). Though my main interest is in helping to improve Wikipedia's interface, in the spirit of consensus and teamwork with other admins of course. I would also jump in and help various projects or programs operate more smoothly. I've noticed that the list of registration requests for AutoWikiBrowser can go days without being processed, and I would help out there and in other obscure nooks and crannies of Wikipedia to help them run more efficiently. From Wikipedia:Administrators, this is the part that interests me the most:
Design and wording of the interface:
  • Admins can change the text of the interface by editing the pages in the MediaWiki namespace. This includes the text at the top of pages such as the "Special:Whatlinkshere" and the page that a blocked user will see when they try to edit a page (MediaWiki:Blockedtext).


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I mentioned them in my self-nom, above. The reason I'm pleased with them is that they've helped improve Wikipedia's structure, the way the Wikipedia Community operates, and the ways in which Wikipedia is used. I like enabling others in getting things done easier and better, whether it be via developing communication tools so they are better informed, navigation aids to help them find their way around easier, instructions (tips) on how to do things faster, making things simpler, etc. I find contributing to Wikipedia's evolution quite exciting and fulfilling.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: There was a confrontation during the Main Page redesign, plus that RfC mentioned above. I had trouble letting go of the competitive approach in favor of the sociocratic approach of consensus building. But later, when developing Wikipedia:Contents and the pages listed thereon, I was forced by circumstances to work with the editor who brought the RfC against me. It was a bit awkward at first, but we put our differences aside, I came out of my shell, and we worked closely with each other and with another user to get an amazing amount of work accomplished. We found a way to blend our talents, and synthesize our differences. Looking back at the previous confrontations, I see that I made mountains out of mole hills. Nothing that a little patience wouldn't have solved. I have since attained a much wider perspective of Wikipedia, and have adopted a long-term approach. There are many ways to make things work on this wiki. There's no reason to clash. You can generally work around problems to find a solution, resculpt pages so they address the concerns of others, and serve the consensus. If one approach doesn't work, there are usually several more to choose from. I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia that I can now find alternative solutions relatively easily.
Another problem I've overcome was that when I started contributing a year ago, I was really out of practice writing, and found it very difficult to articulate what I understood intuitively. I have since become much more adept at explaining situatons and presenting positions. This has made it a lot easier to find mutually agreeable solutions.
4. The Wannabe-Kate tool shows only the last few months of edits. What was your username before you switched?
A: They are listed here. Though I'm using this account pretty much exclusively these days, keeping the others mainly so that I can prove they were mine, in case the issue ever comes up. I just created a new account called User:The Transhumanist (AWB), so I can keep my AutoWikiBrowser edits separate (they tend to crowd out "real" edits).
Optional question from Doug Bell (talk · contribs)
5. You list 13 user names and state above that you've recently created a 14th. Why so many user names, and how many do you still actively use? Do you have any other user names that aren't listed?
A: (Answer expanded at Doug Bell's request, my apologies if it seems verbose): I currently use this account. I've also used User:Go for it occasionally to maintain that user page in case someone wants to make use of its design. One reason for the change is that "Go for it!" is an awkward name. It's a speech act, in that it gives advice or states a command, which made referring to me awkward for others (it sounds funny using it as a name in a sentence). So much so people started calling me "GFI". It's also a very common phrase - searching for talk pages I've participated on as "Go for it" is a fruitless effort. While I was working on the Tip of the day project I got restless and started trying out new names. I burned through a bunch of names before I finally came up with "The Transhumanist" (I was blown away that it wasn't already taken). I also decided to try out the policy on sockpuppets to better understand it, because it mentions that there are legitimate uses for them, but fails to mention what those uses are. (It does however explain the illegitimate uses). So I tried sandbox accounts, splitting up work by subject for better tracking, etc. And of course incognito - it's peaceful being anonymous again, but the joy is shortlived, and technically in violation of policy, since it can be construed that one would only want to edit incognito to escape public scrutiny. Hiding in a corner to lick one's wounds isn't regarded as a strong reason, nor is avoiding the feeling of being watched. My edit summary pattern is distinct enough that I was spotted by someone fairly quickly. After discussing the matter with him and another editor, they convinced me I should post the names on my user page, which rendered the legitimacy issue moot. But, having used so many names, I can tell you from first hand experience why the practice of using multiple account names is inadvisable: tracking down one's own edits becomes a game of hide and seek. It's even worse if you forget any of the account names, let alone the passwords! And then there's the awkward "oops, I forgot which account I was logged in under." Mostly for these reasons, I prefer working with a single account for manual edits. The AWB account is for anticipated repetitious edits which could make browsing of my "real" edits tedious (for me and others), so I've opted to keep those edits separate.
Optional question from Diez2 (talk · contribs)
6.Can you state specifically what sysop chores you will be doing? (Your answer to Question 1 seemed a little vague) I mean, can you state which tools you will use and how, with your experience, will you be using them?
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. First support! MaxSem 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. second :) --Dario vet 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral Support. Looking over these user's contributions, I am absolutely amazed... he's done so much work for this encyclopedia. While I do not see this RfA succeeding at this point, I would like to express my gratitude for all that this user has done. It amounts to a ton of work that has unarguably improved our encyclopedia. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support based on the candidate's high level of dedication to Wikipedia and his contributions to date. However, I recommend withdrawal of this RfA and attention to the concerns raised in the Oppose and Neutral candidates to channel your efforts in the most productive fashion going forward. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose because of behavior at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school which was less than a month ago. Also, the answer to the first question is not very specific. Khatru2 07:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am somewhat vehement in the expression of my views and opinions, I work toward consensus, and toward that end and in the spirit of my philosophy as stated above I created a new page which survived deletion because it accomodated all of the objections of the first MfD. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom. I also took a hard look at the admin training issue, because I was completely blindsided by the response the Admin classroom page got. I came away with an understanding of the issue, which has affected my entire perspective and the approach I take concerning those desiring adminship. Please see the advice I've given at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching#Failed my first RfA in response to a future hopeful. To elaborate on #1 above, the first thing I will do if I'm granted adminship is to explore, every knook and cranny. As I learn, I'll be happy to create new tips for admins (see WP:TOTD. The Transhumanist 08:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose per Riana and Khatru2. Your behaviour concerning your Admin school and the MfAs was very disturbing for an admin candidate. In addition, I find it very off-putting and concerning that your stated objective for being on Wikipedia is to become an administrator. [1]. I'm not convinced you're here on Wikipedia or at RfA for the right reasons. And your answer to question one doesn't indicate any need at all for admin tools. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the statement was made under the assumption that valuable contributions were already being made and would of course continue being made, on the very same page that the contributions were displayed. Isolating the objective isn't representative of how I feel about it, nor does it describe me as a whole. I've been on Wikipedia for a year, and have produced over 17,000 edits, with my edits getting steadily larger with much more content being provided per edit (on average) now than when I started. My quality level and hence my quality priority is plainly visible for everyone to see. Striving for quality is pretty much a given for us Wikipediholics. As for question #1, it has very little to do with what I need, and everything to do with what I might turn up once I start poking around. That's what I'm good at - finding useful things to bring to life and bring into the mainstream. It's impossible to predict what those will be until after I come across them. The Transhumanist 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people who make successful requests for adminship have a demonstrable need for the tools. That you are unable to point to any admin areas and simply want the tools in the event that something "turn[s] up once [you] start poking around" reinforces my fear that you view adminship as a trophy or a status symbol. Edit count and time served are important only insofar as they help indicate experience in various areas. That is all. There are some very respected, prolific editors with several years and tens of thousands of edits who probably wouldn't pass RfA. So 17, 000 edits and year on Wiki are not significant factors. I have to agree with Steel, I find your revised answer to question one rather disquieting. I really don't think we need people "poking around" and "tweaking" the MediaWiki namespace. Sarah Ewart 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Khatru2. --Deskana talk 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Khatru2, not the behavior of an admin. ← ANAS Talk? 11:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. From what I've observed, I feel The Transhumanist is a good-faith editor with good intentions. That said, he seems, to me, to harbor a belief that adminship is some sort of prize or badge of honor. I don't mean to single The Transhumanist out; this is, unfortunately, a widespread idea, and it's harmful to the encyclopedia. Adminship really is "no big deal," and, although Jimbo's quote has been repeated so many times it's beyond cliché, I still feel it's an important principle we need to hold to as a project. I also have some concerns about his ability to accept and respond to criticism, which is a fairly regular consequence of using admin tools. The recent Esperanza MfD and related discussions haven't assuaged that concern, I'm afraid. The Transhumanist may very well make a fine admin at some time in the future—in fact, I hope so—but I believe that he first needs to reexamine his attitude towards some aspects of the project. --Slowking Man 12:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Going after something can make that appear so. I am very strategic in nature. But my motivation isn't ego, nor pride, nor a trophy to stick in the top right corner of my user page (I've already got a Wikignome up there). My agenda is pretty straight-forward: to edit pages. If there was a separate account type which gave access to protected pages without the admin tools, I'd go for that. I have very little interest in the extra buttons. I have done very little vandal hunting. It's not my thing. I don't participate much in clean up projects, etc. They're not me. I like to build, tweak, improve. That's my focus, that's my strength. I work on articles and instruction pages mostly. Lists, tips, menus, directories, see also sections, instructions, descriptions, and templates. I think I could be of help improving the protected pages of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good God, no per Sarah Ewart. This user has shown that he sees adminship as a status symbol, and I question how much experience he has actually doing something for the encyclopedia. -- Steel 14:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC). Extra: I'm also a bit worried about his answer to question 1. I get the feeling he would go round changing Mediawiki like mad. -- Steel 14:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose. Sarah summarized what I was basically going to say. I also wouldn't like to see a user who responds to almost every single non-support he/she gets. Nishkid64 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strongest Possible Oppose I think Transhumanist is trying to act in good faith, but Admin school and other activities in which he obsessed about adminship is just really, really bothering. Yanksox 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose Candidate seems like a very nice person, but the Admin School MfD shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what adminship is. Xoloz 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, sorry but per others.__Seadog ♪ 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Not, actually, because of the various nasty things Transhumanist said about me during the MfD--I appreciated that those comments were withdrawn. But there is a more general pattern here--a desire to hierarchize and formalize everything (content as well as people)--in which adminship seems to play a prominent role in his thinking. It's been several years now since Jimbo said that adminship is "no big deal," and many things have changed, but let's not have admins trying to make it more of a big deal than it already is or needs to be. Chick Bowen 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Most admins never even have to think about the MediaWiki: space, and Transhumanist is highly interested in it? Sysopping is much more boring than I think he realizes, with lots of boring articles and thing to deal with. --humblefool® 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose. Sorry to pile on here, but I'm opposing because of
    • Civility and maturity concerns;
    • The admin school (both as a concept and because of your behavior during discussion of the issue);
    • Adminship is not a trophy, and I dislike the entire concept of people grooming themselves for it;
    • I dislike the focus on user pages and you sprinkling links to User:The Transhumanist/User page design all over the Wikipedia namespace, promoting not only your own user page project as a Wikipedia project, but also inviting the MySpace aspects here on Wikipedia;
    • I'm quite concerned with your interest in mucking with the MediaWiki templates—changes to the look and feel and content of the Wikipedia pages needs stability. Simply by how often you've changed your user name and the amount you mess around with changing your and other user pages I fear a look-of-the-week tinkering with the look and feel.
    —Doug Bell talk 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose - I've seen a fair bit of shoutiness from this user at XfD. What is more, [2] is deeply worrying. If a user wants adminship that much, the tools should probably be kept away from them at all costs. Adminship is not a status symbol. Nor, for that matter, is Wikipedia a place for Wikilawyering and Wikipoliticking. It's an encyclopaedia. That userpage would suggest otherwise. The Admin School was also a seriously bad error of judgment, and poor judgement is the last thing admins can afford. Sorry, but no. Please take this as constructive criticism - I am not trying to wreck you as a Wikipedian. But there are things that need to be done before an RFA will succeed. Moreschi 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose per user's response to another oppose vote: "I have very little interest in the extra buttons. I have done very little vandal hunting. It's not my thing. I don't participate much in clean up projects, etc. They're not me." An administrator doesn't need to have done vandal hunting or necessarily "clean up projects" -- but to actually state one's disinterest in their own RfA totally kills any possibility of support for me. Administrator != access to protected pages for your own fun. -- Renesis (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Very quick to make decisions and implement them without discussion. We wrote a whole guideline (WP:DISCUSS) to deal with the actions you repeated at Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Community Portal! (after you ignored the RfC/UC, which you never actually commented on).
    You're a hard-working editor; but you have no need for admin tools - ((editprotected)) works just fine. You seem to work by the "forgiveness later is easier than permission now" principle - a bad habit for aspiring admins. Per answer to question#1: You're not an experienced web-developer, so shouldn't be allowed to whimsically tinker with the site's css/js.
    Lastly, the colorful sig, and the propagation of smilies certainly doesn't help. --Quiddity 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. I hate to pile on, but user clearly demonstrates lack of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, per all above. Suggest withdraw. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose- Per above.--SUIT 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: I'm very likely repeating others comments, and I don't like Opposing, but this is the second RfA at the moment I really can't sit back and do nothing about. There's no need for this candidate to be given the mop, further, the answers to question 1 suggest an inherent albeit unintentional danger to Wikipedia from this user. Sorry. Time for a bureaucrat or the candidate to withdraw this before this pileon gets any worse, I'd suggest. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Sarah Ewart, Steel359, Dlohcierekim and others. 1ne 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Vehement and Unwavering Oppose mostly per others, especially Renesis and Doug Bell. While your intentions are good, your actions do not seem to reflect that at all, especially on the MfD which everyone has mentioned ad nauseum. I especially find fault — nay, abhor — the fact that you actually submitted a proposal to change the name of a longstanding (now defunct?) program to fit your own agenda. You seem to regard adminship as the quintessential goal of a Wikipedia editor (which is hardly true at all) and you seem to want admin tools to edit nonessential interface-related places that bring relatively no benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. Your (seemingly self-righteous) answer to question #4 is extremely troubling. Why are you recycling through 14 accounts when one will suffice? Also, your combativeness on this RfA, though minor, automatically kills any chance of passing on an RfA. I especially dislike people who promote themselves on their RfA which you did in your response to Sarah Ewart's oppose. With the combination of such factors, and others which editors had or will point out, leads me to oppose this nomination. While I hate to say it, poetic justice is a harsh reality. --210physicq (c) 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per lack of maturity and incivility. I also dislike this "grooming for adminship" style.--Jersey Devil 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. The behavior here and in the Admin school MFD make me feel extremely uncomfortable. Also, the answer to question #1 just left me sweating cold: none of those areas should be edited by admins unless there's a need to do so. The reason we have the editinterface permission is because we're trusted to maintain things stable, not to go around fiddling with extremely visible portions of the site. Finally, his assertion that adminship is an end contradicts the long-standing cultural axiom that states that "Adminship is no big deal". It should never be the goal of an editor, just a step he naturally reaches. Titoxd(?!?) 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral following perplexing behaviour at the Admin school MfD. Not something I like to see in an admin candidate. riana_dzasta 07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I bowed out of the discussion, in acknowledgement of WP:SNOW. There was no sense in being defiant to the end. I felt it was better to bow out, and move on to another approach. I hope you like the end result at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom. It's basically a forum for hosting discussions on a wide array of topics. The Transhumanist 08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do - I think you're doing a good job there. And I commend you for bowing out of the discussion. However, prior to that, your behaviour was, well, unsettling, to say the least. Sorry, but I'm not prepared to support right now. riana_dzasta 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you've lost me. What did I do that bothered you? I'll make good use of any feedback you can provide. The Transhumanist 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is only my personal opinion, so others may not share it - however, I don't intend for my views to influence other people's, so I guess that doesn't really matter. I mislike the fact that you allowed yourself to get so involved in the situation as to call the nomination 'totally out of line... ill conceived, and lacks good faith'. I don't like seeing comments made in such a way that one has to strike them out later on. It's not something personal I have against you - I've found you to be a good and helpful user. However, you can continue to be so without admin tools. Nothing about your behaviour distresses me enough to outright oppose your request, which is why I'm down here in this column. I'm sorry that I can't express my issues more cogently than this - it's more of a discomfort about how you'd handle the political aspects of adminship, than a burning desire to prevent you from getting the mop (which I could, no doubt, articulate quite well). Apologies if this doesn't help you very much. riana_dzasta 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Had I reversed my decision buried in the discussion somewhere, it wouldn't be nearly as obvious as the way I did it. And that was the effect I was going for: "I withdraw, discussion over. That it startled or shocked you was not the intent. Though I'm glad you liked the replacement page I designed. Now that was my intent! The Transhumanist 12:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend you withdraw - this RfA seems unlikely to reach consensus. riana_dzasta 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: I am not quite sure why you need the adminship at the moment; you seem to be doing fine at the moment without the special tools so far. However, if there is a good reason, I would probably support. -- Casmith 789 08:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would provide more skins to peel off the onion. That is, explore! I try to improve Wikipedia wherever I go within it, and I would definitely do the same with any new areas I was provided access to. And it looks like it would be fun, which is the main reason I've been here the past year: I enjoy working on Wikipedia! Don't you? The Transhumanist 08:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral until the user reads WP:SIG, especially: "In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with colour." A three line signature makes pages hard to read and follow, and those rainbow colours are distracting. Please change Your sig. feydey 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'm going to have to go neutral on this RfA as the editor didn't mention the Admin School debacle at all in their application. I don't think that something like that debate can be brushed over without even an acknowledgement. (aeropagitica) 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral behavior at DRV [3] (unrelated to admin school) was a bit troubling... doesn't really seem to get that WP:V isn't optional and sometimes sources just don't exist for an article, and what that means. I don't really think we need more admins who think it's okay to include various hoaxes and unverifiable junk in the belief that maybe someday, somehow, someone will find a source. I can't bring myself to pile on though. --W.marsh 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it really the verifyability that was an issue in that case? As far as I can tell, we all acknowledged that the forum General Mayhem exists.[4] Rather, the notability was the core issue, and the relevant guideline is WP:WEB. You seem to be reading a lot into this person's WikiPhilosophy on verifyability, notability, and deletion from that one keep vote. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't feel comfortable with admins who feel like we can ignore guidelines for subjective and weak reasons. WP:WEB exists to make sure we'll have something reliable and NPOV to say about an article... if the only source is the website, that's not really going to happen. Not caring about that speaks to a misunderstanding of why we have WP:V in the first place. --W.marsh 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral to avoid pile-on. From what's been mentioned above (including the Genmay DRV), I think you should withdraw and try again in a few months, especially after reading core policies like WP:V and getting more involved with their use. Also, please change your signature- three lines and multiple colours go beyond the scope of usefulness. --Wafulz 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral to avoid pile on, please withdraw and try again in a few months after fimilarizing yourself with Wikipedia's customs and core plocies.-- danntm T C 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. You've done an extraordinary amount of work here, and I was personally interested in the concept of 'Admin School' when I first found out about it. As much as I would seriously like to support, though, I'm worried by your conduct at that project's MfD page. Sorry. :( Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Nice kid. Heart's in the right place. -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 1 December 2006 (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