Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah

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

Connormah

Final (14/19/13) Withdrawn by candidate at 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Connormah (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. Although I started out as a clueless user, uploading innapropriate non-free images, I believe I have come a long way since those times. Within the last year, I've been taking up a say, gnomish approach at editing. Within that time, I've uploaded various signature images to Wikipedia (Presidents of the United States, Prime Ministers of Canada...etc), working on images, uploading vector versions of images, adding infoboxes, fixing typos, reverting vandalism, etc. Recently, I was granted rollback rights, and have since engaged in more extensive counter-vandalism activities. I do believe I am capable of helping out in the administrative side of things here. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say I've got a lot to work on, and I think it's appropriate to withdraw this RfA. I thank everyone for their time spent commenting, and reviewing, and assessing me, but I feel I have too much to work on until I can be trusted with the tools. Thanks again. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As a new admin, I would intend to work on the areas that I spend most time in as a regular editor: routinely checking WP:RFPP, for page protections, and WP:AIV for troubling editors. I also intend to do some New page patrolling, once in a while, and delete nonsense/attack/non-notable articles.

I'd like to clarify that I do not intend to work much, if any in CSD. My main focusses would be RFPP and AIV.

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

A: At this point, I'd say my best contributions would be the many signature images I've uploaded to Wikipedia. I find it interesting to find and upload signatures of various politicians/writers/scientists. Currently, I am working on an expansion of the George H. V. Bulyea article, which would be my first major writing project on Wikipedia. After I'm done with that, I plan to work with a group of editors, to get John Adams to a good article, then eventually to a featured article.

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: Perhaps the most heated conflict I've gotten in was a heated disagreement with User:David Fuchs about the insertation of a non-free vector logo on Bungie. David acted moderately uncivil and very stubborn during this dispute, but I guess I'd say that I maintained my cool throughout the whole dispute. Attempts to settle this on David's talk page reponded with more uncivil remarks, and this eventually went to WP:ANI. I had given into him by rendering a raster version of the vector I'd inserted, shortly after the ANI thread garnered no attention from more than 2 users, merely from pressure. The raster eventually got deleted, though, under the circumstance that there was a vector version available. You can view the AN/I thread that was initiated here.

A few from Smithers

4. Explain CSD criterion G1 in your own words.

A. Basically, G1 would be a page created with the content something like "gfvjshgjlfhgnaerjsldgn", with no other meaningful content contained in it. This would not include articles with non-english text, unless it's incoherent in the language it's in.

5. Do the same for G3.

A. G3 would be pure, blatant, and obvious vandalism or, made up info with no backing support. Basically, it's an attempt to mislead a reader into believing something that is purely not true.

6. Explain, in your own words, the difference between CSD criteria A1 and A3.

A. While both involve the content of the article, G1 is just pure nonsense, random characters, while G3 is more for vandalism and attempts to misinform. Gosh, what a dumb mistake, I misread this for G3 and G1, oops. Context vs. content. A1 is where an article lacks context to identify the article subject, while A3 is when an article lacks content.

But what is the difference between having no content to no context? smithers - talk 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No context is text that just takes up space, but is not meaningful enough to identify the article subject. No content is say, consisting of entirely external links, category tags, images, etc. A redirect is not A3.

Additional optional questions from Shirik

7. As reviewing administrator, how would you respond to this and this CSD nomination?

A. For the first one, I would search if there are any reliable source coverage for that subject. If none are found, I would delete it under A7. If some are found, I would decline, and add a NPOV tag, because the 'brilliant guitar player' does not adhere to the NPOV policy, or fix it myself. The second one I would merge into Acme Corporation, under a possible section for instrument models, but if it has various reliable sources significantly covering it, I would decline.

8. When, if ever, might you consider indefinite full protection for a page in the article namespace?

A. Generally, I wouldn't consider indefinite full-protection of an article page, in any circumstance. One exception would be for legal reasons, but of that were to happen, I'd say it wouldn't be up to me, but to the Office. As a general rule, I would never indefinitely protect a page in the article namespace without strong consensus among editors.

Additional follow-up question from Shirik

9. Regarding question #7, for the second page, assume that the company's page on Wikipedia does not exist and neither the company nor the subject of the article can be found in a search for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Because your option of "merge" no longer exists, what would be your response?

A. In that case, I'd have to go ahead and delete the article under A7.

Followup by User:DGG: please explain under what exact provision of A7 it fits. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. A7 states that it only applies to organizations and people, or animals. I was mistaken on the answer to the question above.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

10. What is your opinion on the Ignore all rules policy?

A: I think it's a fair policy. I think if an editor is held back from improving an article by a rule, they should be bold, and by all means, ignore it. Though, I think it should not be misinterpreted to ignore consensus, or an invitation to make edits contradicting Wikipedia's purpose as a free encyclopedia.

11. What are your views on the Petition against IAR abuse?

A: I fully support it, I believe no admin should cite the IAR policy as a backup to improper or controversial uses to their tools.

12. As an admin, would you or would you not use the WP:IAR policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?

A: I would not use the WP:IAR policy to back up any contested actions I may make unless there is consensus to do so among the community in that particular situation.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

13. In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on an unsourced or badly sourced BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus, how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?

A. I would converse with a more experienced admin than I am, before taking any action, but undetermined consensus at AFD should usually default to keep.

14. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I think the policy is generally good, though I stress that editors should be super careful when adding possibly controversial information to a BLP, without reliable, and verifiable sourcing. I have not done much, if any work with BLPs, but if I do, I promise to be very careful while adding information.

15. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?

A. I think the privacy of editors, especially minors is essential. If personal information is ever disclosed by an editor other than the one it is being disclosed of, and the editor objects it, I would definitely contact an oversight for the removal of that information immediately.

Additional optional questions from Ottawa4ever (talk)

16.This question is meant to be a AIV scenario; A newly created account (User A) posts an incidence of which is percieved as vandalism and is subsequently warned against doing so by a User B. User A subsequently removes the warning from his/her talk page. And another user, C (which is an IP with no edits until now) places the warning back. User A removes the warning again and C places it back. This repeats until User A has removed the warning a total of 3 times. User B (not C) subsequently reports User A for vandalsim on AIV. Being on AIV how would you handle this. If any thing is unclear i will gladly clarify. Thanks. A reminder these are optional questions.

A. I would decline any action against user A, as it appears from the scenario that this user only has one warning, and has been improperly warned.

17. For my curiosity and maybe others, can you describe if you would handle the conflict any differently today as described in Query 3. Ie would you do anything differently? Thanks

A. I'd definately drop the edit war that went on. Not acceptable. I'd go to the talk page, and definately atart a discussion. I did, however raise it on the user's talk page after a couple reverts, though, but as you see, I was met with incivilty.

General comments

• Links for Connormah: Connormah (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Connormah can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at talk -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why haven't you corrected the obvious mistake you made in Question 6? It was even brought up in the oppose section. Tan | 39 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Done. I just realized I'd mistaken it for G3/G1. My sincerest apologies. Can't believe I did that. Mistake now corrected. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

Support. Good user, knows what he's doing. Quite knowledgeable in media copyright, files, ect. Good Luck! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) moved to neutral. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Support the answers to questions show understanding of policies and requirements for the areas that he intends to work on.  Marlith (Talk)  00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Support A plus is that you admit to your mistakes. Good luck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Support per the answers to my questions. I doubt that this editor will turn into one of those "I'm right, your wrong and I'm an admin so deal with it" admins. We already have enough of those. Good job and good luck!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Weak Support Great editor, but have some concerns about issues raised below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Support I have had extremely good interactions with this user, and I trust him/her with the administrative tools. --Blargh29 (talk) 07:44, 3 February
6. Support Good Track and see no scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards due to no memorable negative interactions (usually means candidate is reasonable), candidate having never been blocked (never stepped on any toes), candidate having rollback (trusted), and candidate having edited for over three years with over 9,000 edits (experienced), which again, with three years and nearly ten thousands edits has avoided being blocked or coming into conflict with me. I also like the answer to the question on handling speedy delete templated articles that "I would search if there are any reliable source coverage for that subject." THAT is exactly what I expect of anyone who templates an article, i.e. to not go about templating in a lazy manner that goes against WP:BEFORE. The candidate in that response demonstrates a considerateness toward fellow editors, namely article creators and editors and a willingness to not be careless, but to instead be helpful. So, I might as well support. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Over 3 years of experience and a fairly calm user in my opinion. Also support as per Ktr101. Minimac94 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - honestly don't believe there would be more than an occasional mistake if given the mop. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Support the idea that an admin candidate has to know by heart all of the tricky deletion criteria annoys me. If this is an "open book exam", the book will still be there when the new admin does it for real. Sorry the opposes are not focusing on suitability, rather than minor mistakes.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Seems a trustworthy person and patient almost to a fault. Excellent admin material. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Weak Support - It's not like he will block Jimbo or delete the main page. smithers - talk 03:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Weak Support I spent about 20 minutes checking him off, and even if I do not go by my criteria, he seems decentm, with his work in RFPP, AIV and his partial work in CSD, along with his minor article building (lots of gonming). (Now I have to open other tabs for the next person down) Buggie111 (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Been very supportive of me, completely trust the user with Adminship. Sodacan (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry to be the first opposer, but I'm unfortunately not convinced of your knowledge of the CSD area right now. I went back a few months and could only find CSD activity going back until the 11th of January. In that time, I saw a few questionable calls for CSD, most notably [1] but also the peculiar but non-vandal [2]. Questions #7 and #9 lead me to believe you need a little more experience before I can trust you in that area. I would certainly not be opposed to another RFA in a few months after you gain more experience in that area. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   I admit, I made a mistake on the first one. The second one, reading through the content of the page, it seemed as vandalism, note that the creator has had a page deleted directly after I nominated that page. Althpugh I undertand the reasoning for your oppose, I'd like to emphasize that I don't intend work in CSD as often as some other things I intend to, in question one. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but your question #1 mentioned that you would patrol "once in a while, and delete nonsense/attack/non-notable articles" and that was my basis for asking questions #7 and #9 and reviewing your past patrolling behavior. So as to help you improve, question #9 is properly answered with "decline", potentially with an immediate PROD or post to WP:AFD, as products do not fall under A7. I'm going to leave this !vote here for now, but I will continue to review comments from others and other work you have done. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   To clarify, I'd first start out, and continue in this field with only the obvious tagged articles tagged (G10, G3), although, I'll still stress that I don't have a strong intention to work in that area. Thanks for notifying me of your desired answer for Q9, though, it'll definately come in handy in the future. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I'm sorry, I've agonised over this one. Question 9 is a real problem. A7 is the most commonly applied speedy deletion criterion. To not have a basic understanding of it is a fundamental issue, all the more so in what is an "open book exam" and where the candidate has recently made some erroneous tags. I could only overlook it for a candidate who outright promised not to do speedy deletions. I don't at this stage see enough positives to outweigh this but, like Shirik I may move my vote if those positives are presented. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps I should reword that. Basically, (without citing a criterion), what I said is that I'd delete the article, for it not having established notability. Yes, I did make a mistake on question 9, I should have though about it more, but in that type of situation, I'd usually seek the opinions of another more experienced administrator, before taking any action, if any. However, I'll stress again that I don't have a huge intrest in CSD, and I'd only do speedy deletions of obvious tags, such as A10, and A3, if I ever do CSD. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply, I will take it into account. I would also point out that "establishing notability" is not a threshhold for any of the speedy deletion criteria. A7 merely requires a "credible claim" to notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   A7 should not be applied simply because it is a guitar not a person or organization etc. This should not be speedied. However, all guitars have to be made by someone, odd if they were not. Claiming a guitar is made by a company X that does not exist on wikipedia and appears to be non-notable itself is not a credible claim for notability of the guitar. It is not even a credible claim for notability of the guitar company. However, this is academic because A7 was wrong. Polargeo (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Indeed, I'm not saying the article makes a credible claim to notability (it doesn't). I'm pointing out that the candidate's reply to my vote indicates he conflates "credible claim to notability" with "established notability". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose per User:Shirik, while I understand that you have said you will not be working tons with new page patrolling and CSD it was one of you stated tasks in the answer to Q1. As such I cannot support this user. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience first in varied capacities. Particularly content work, improvement of article quality, etc. Cirt (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Weak Oppose, I do not like the answers to Q7, Q9 and Q12. This revert and the subsequent newbie user warning could have been worded much better. The subsequent message is not helpful either. I also don't like the banner on User_talk:Connormah/RVV_Noticeboard; the guidelines do not seem to assume good faith per se. --Pgallert (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Could you clease clarify your concerns regarding the message to Politoman? (note he was blocked as a sock a couple days after that) I simply admitted a mistake, and, to tell you the truth, was pretty mad at myself for screwing up. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could also explain your concerns to my RVV noticeboard, perhaps it should be reworded. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 14:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Certainly, I'll be happy to do that. Regarding the revert - to me it is clearly a good-faith edit. The revert as such might be okay (I wouldn't have reverted that) but the standard edit summary of Huggle is not, it suggests you're reverting vandalism. Also, to a user with only a few dozen edits you could, in my opinion should, have personalised the warning notice explaining why his edit was not appropriate. (I noticed the user is blocked but that's not a good excuse at this stage: he wasn't blocked at the time and I assume you did not have a suspicion at the time). Admission of the mistake... well, maybe I misunderstood you and you want to clarify. To me it looks like this: 1) you warn the user 2) the user complains 3) You state that you do not apologise or take back your warning 4) You strike out the warning without explanation but you don't strike out your message that you don't apologise. You also do not reinstate his edit. Furthermore, you do not answer Politoman's question anywhere, why was it inappropriate?

   Regarding the banner, let me first state that a big stop sign on a talk page is not the best invitation for dialogue. And the guidelines seem to assume that anyone (or at least: many) coming to this page likely have the intention to insult or threaten you. I might be over-sensitive but to me it doesn't look like AGF. Hope this has helped to clarify. --Pgallert (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Not satisfied with answers to 5, 6, or 9, and answer to 12 is a cop-out. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Weak Oppose I was on the verge of supporting but I see that this editor still does not have a full grasp of CSD policy. Polargeo (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose from weak oppose. There are too many issues with the answers. This isn't just one mistake. I think this has reached the level demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of policy. It does not benefit wikipedia to have admins who do not grasp the basic policies that they are applying. Polargeo (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

8. Weak Oppose The fact that apparently you didn't notice the difference between an A and a G in Q6 is already enough to sway me to oppose... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 12:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   We are human - We can't make no mistakes. I don't understand why you are opposing just because of a simple mistake. smithers - talk 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose Still looking for a better grasp of CSD policy.  fetchcomms☛ 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose per 3. Sorry, but I don't like to see an admin candidate blaming another user entirely for a dispute, as it shows a lack of reflection. Rather than describe how the other user misbehaved, I would prefer to see you opine on how you could have handled the situation better. If you thought you handled it in the best way possible, then an argument as to why that is the case would be appropriate. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I think it's by far the most important question. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've asked the user a follow up question related to 3. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, but still Oppose. The follow-up to #3 failed to reassure me. Answers seem unnecessarily brief, and not indicative of a clueful, thoughtful editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    I fully undertsand your position, I just felt it prudent to ask a follow up there. I wasnt to impressed with the amount of meat presented in 16 and 17. Just an indication of the thought process behind the actions. Not that in my opinion they are fully wrong, they can be correct, but in the back of my head there is reasoning behind every action, such as I would do this becuase, theres a thought pattern, As an Admin you'll (Connormah) need to explain your actions at times, and I was hoping for a little of this. I still myself wont oppose nor will I support at this time. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    Lack of "meat" is a concern of mine as well. Even after a bevy of opposes, Connormah replied with, what seem to me to be, glib answers. Sorry, but I can't support an RfA candidate who responds to criticism in such a manner. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I'm sorry, I hate to oppose but the answers to the question are not deep enough to convince me that you know what you're doing. The CSD questions are concerning, but probably not oppose-worthy in themselves. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Shirik above. Good editor, adminship isn't for them right now.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Not right now Study up on policy, keep contributing, and decide in 3-6 months if you want to really invest the time in answering the questions carefully the first time. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

    I believe I've been careful in answering these questions, though I did make a couple errors. What do you mean by for 'the first time'? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

    Check Question 6, the discussion section, and oppose #8. The fact that you haven't corrected this yet - and asked the above question - is a bit telling. Tan | 39 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've corrected it accordingly. My apologies.Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose I think that you are a very experienced user here, and are an asset to Wikipedia. However, I don't really see how administrative abilities would help you, and before I support this I would like to see some more marking articles for deletion, and maybe even some Huggle vandalism undoing. Also, you have only been granted the rollback flag recently, and I would like to see how you do with that a bit more. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    Admnistrative tools would be not of help of me, but for the community. Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    Allow me to rephrase: They help you help Wikipedia. Better? Also, instead of responding with a semantics argument, why not argue my position, and prove me wrong? If you can do that, then you will get my support. Arguing my wording won't get you that. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

15. Oppose - Not enough experience, as is shown by the answers. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose Essentially per Jclemens. The answers demonstrate an unsatisfactory level of comprehension, and understanding and application of policy. A few months of dedicated immersion in admin-space would make a lot of difference as potential is there. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose I am not confident that you understand CSD policy. I am afraid that this is my major turndown. All admins, even if they intend not to CSD, need to know the policy. (See User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I would like to see much more content contribution, activity in admin-related areas, and knowledge and comprehension of policy, particularly CSD. The glib, "fluffed-up" answers don't help either. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

    Could you please elaborate on 'more activity in admin-related areas'? I'd say a big chunk of my contribs are reporting vandals, requesting page protection, reporting improper usernames, etc. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose, sorry, CSD concerns, per above. Aiken ♫ 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not really convinced either way. I want to see some more answers before I decide. ceranthor 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral The opposes give me cause for concern, but not strong enough to oppose. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Bad feeling about many of the answers. The CSD thing seems like more of a Facepalm thing than a legitimate concern, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral I too would like to know (per query 3) if the user would handle this differently today. But thats just my curiosity. I wont oppose/support at this time. I think the user has alot of potential but i share some of the concerns raised by the opposition. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral for now, after looking over this a few time there are a few concerns which make me uncomfortable to support, my apologies. --Taelus (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral – Both the affirmative and the opposition make good arguments. iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral. You're a great editor, but your answers to the above questions are giving me a pause. Sorry, but I don't think I can support in good conciseness any longer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral leaning support. While there are definitely some great contributions, and I don't think you'd willingly misuse the tools, the answers are causing me some pause, I think. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Absolutely zero prejudice towards a second RfA in 4-6 months. Pick the issues here that seem the strongest, work on them, and I'd be happy to support later. Tan | 39 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral: Leaning support, but still undecided. South Bay (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral: Not quite ready yet. If I were you, I would become involved in the areas now that you want to be more involved in later. Let a few neutral third parties let you know when they feel you're ready to put yourself through RFA again - it's no big deal. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Neutral In my opinion, administrators should generally have some more substantive content contributions than the candidate seems to have at this time. However, I'm not very convinced by the opposers. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Neutral Per Bwilkins. I hope this user comes back soon, he seems on the cusp of making it. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.