Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Killiondude

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

Killiondude

(100/0/0); Ended 08:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Killiondude (talk · contribs) – This is one of those nominations where I find myself surprised that this editor is not an admin, but at the same time delighted to have him as my first nomination. On a personal note, I have chatted with this user several times and find him to be very honest, very cordial, and very responsible. I admire him as a person and as an editor as well. I'm impressed to see an average of 1000 or so edits per month, including over 150 reports to WP:AIV. He has put in a lot of hard work on California-related articles, and I have seen him effectively communicate at ANI, DRV and article talk pages. There are even some template edits for those of you who admire a 'well-rounded' candidate ;) For those who appreciate the cold-hard facts, he's been here a year and has over 12K edits and I think he is going to make a very wise and level-headed administrator. Law _{type! snype?} 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Killiondude is polite, helpful, knowledgeable, and possesses a clue. He has demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate commitment the project. He is available, civil, and calm. I can't think of more to say other than the community reflect upon his tone and contributions. Keegan (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you to both Law and Keegan for their support and noms. Killiondude (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2009 (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: I would essentially work in any area that needs help; CAT:AB almost always has work that needs to be done. I watch protected edit requests from time to time and notice that is another area which could use an extra hand. I also respond to {{helpme}} requests on a somewhat regular basis. Being able to view delete contribs and/or pages is something that could assist me in helping those users. I also plan on helping out users who use the {{adminhelp}} template.

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

A: Well, it may not seem much to others, but I would say I'm most proud of Template:Protected Areas of California. It was my first time dealing with more advanced template coding, and I spent many, many hours writing it, fixing links, etc. This was the way it looked before I touched it, if you'd like to see a prior version. I can't take all the credit, as users like MZMcBride and MSGJ, among others, helped as well. As far as content development, I enjoy writing articles on historic buildings/places, and have 5 DYK credits for those types of articles. For several months I was really active on WP:FEED, and I amassed quite a few edits to that page, responding regularly to people's requests for feedback on articles they edited. Most of the requests were from users who were new or still getting their bearings with regard to editing Wikipedia, and I tried to help them through their first wikisteps.

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 can honestly say that I've never been stressed by anything that I've come across on Wikipedia. I have had minor disagreements with other editors, but nothing that was large enough for me to remember at the time of answering this question. I will say one thing about wikistress though; if you are being stressed over something that is happening on Wikipedia, it is time to walk away from your computer and do something enjoyable in real-life. I don't plan on getting wikistressed, but should I manage to be in the future, I will definitely take my own advice here.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. Please explain your understanding of fair use on Wikipedia.

A: Fair use content should only be used when there's no chance that a free use alternative is possible. Fair use content should be used very sparingly since Wikipedia's goal is to provide a free content encyclopedia. There are strict rules about usage of fair use on Wikipedia, for example, the content has to be used on at least 1 article, can only be used in the article namespace, can only be used if it adds, to use the same word in the policy, "significant" understanding of the topic it is illustrating, and so on. Essentially, fair use content should be used as a last resort, when free content is not available.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

5. A vandal keeps messing with your user page, if you get the admin tools, what will you do in this situation?

A: It only takes one click to revert :-) I would probably warn the user using the uw templates. I tend to keep tabs on vandalism accounts, and would follow the account's contribs, taking action if/when necessary.

Additional optional questions from Jon513

6. I have noticed that you have added many {{DisambigProject}} templates many talk pages. What do you see as the purpose of talk page project banners?

A: Oh yeah. I was helping fix "broken talk pages" (talk pages that redirected to another page, when the article page didn't) that Mikaey's bot had compiled. Talk page banners are useful for a few reasons. It makes organizing things simpler. With tools like AWB and bots, talk page banners are useful for compiling lists. It also might lead someone who is not a Wikipedia editor, but a reader, into the project space of Wikipedia, possibly encouraging them to contribute.

Questions from Tony1

7. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A: I think that giving them the option to strike the rude text and apologize is a very good idea. We're all human; sometimes we say (type, in this case) things that we don't mean or that we regret later. I think the criteria to use this strategy would be to examine the user's interactions with others in the past. If they're in good standing, like the editor in this scenario was, then it would be appropriate to respond with the scenario above. If the user isn't in good standing, has a history of blocks, is unproductive, etc. it might need to be dealt with in another manner.

8. How strict should the policy on alt. accounts be? Any alternate accounts yourself?

A: This is the only account account I use, but before registering this account I did use User:Onewayout12. At the time of registering for this account, I didn't know you could rename accounts. Since the registration of this account, I stopped using the old one completely. The reason for the new account was simply because I didn't like the old username.

The policy on alt accounts seems to be acceptable as-is. I've only had limited dealings with sock accounts on Wikipedia, but I have read and understand the policy.

9. Are you willing to give an idea of your age range? Teens, 20s, 30s, etc.? (Optional)

A: I'm 19, but I've been in college for a couple years already (if that aids in anyone's judgment of my maturity level).

10. Any examples of content editing (i.e., prose) you'd like to provide?

A: Well there's Woodland Opera House, Yolo County Courthouse, Gibson Mansion and Gable Mansion. Those are all pages I've created and have been featured in the "Did you know" section on the main page. I also clean / tidy up pages, especially NRHP, CHL, and city-related articles, but I've been known to lend a hand in other articles as well.

Optional question from Keepscases

11. According to your user page, you favor a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. How strict do you consider your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines?

A: Wikipedia guidelines are more to advise people how to act and edit on Wikipedia, whereas policies have a larger amount of consensus, and should always be followed. When dealing with things on Wikipedia, it is always best to use common sense in my opinion. So far, it hasn't led me astray. :-)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

12. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: Something that I would term "automatically notable" would be because they are able meet the general notability requirements, even though it might take some digging for sources. For instance, it is commonly said that NRHP articles are "automatically notable". I was curious about how this idea came about. I did some searching awhile back, and found it is because of the amount of coverage that NRHPs generally have. One source that each NRHP has is the extensive nomination application that is submitted. Not only that, but because of the NRHP status, the subject gets at least local article or other third party coverage which can be found through some digging. So I guess what I'm saying is that things that are "automatically" notable would mean they meet the current notability policies. As far as inclusion/exclusion, I feel that anything that meets the notability guideline and doesn't violate WP:NOT is perfectly fine to include on Wikipedia.

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

13. Please examine this AfD. How would you have closed it, and why?

A: This was a close one. I've reviewed the discussion several times, and I would probably close it as "No consensus"; the amount of users who wanted it kept/merged was just slightly higher than the amount of users who wanted it deleted. I understand that consensus is not in numbers, but even after the article had been worked on to alleviate some of the issues brought up in the debate, there still was no apparent consensus forming. There was no majority sentiment of deleting nor keeping the article. I feel that in this case for an admin to close in one direction or the other (keep or delete) a greater majority than the one presented here is necessary.

Additional question from decltype

14. According to this, you seem to think that Jimbo Wales is a "shady person". Could you elaborate on this characterization, and the background for the discussion?

A: Chzz and I were discussing removing content from articles that is unsourced. My opinion on the subject was that information that doesn't appear dubious, negative, or otherwise send up any sort of red flag might be acceptable to leave in articles. Many of the articles written in the first several years of Wikipedia's existence, for example, are not nearly as well-referenced as the content that is being developed today, but this doesn't mean that the information should be removed. If you look at any GA or FA that was promoted 2-3 years ago, you'll notice that the referencing standards were quite lower. This is not to say that I don't think articles or information added today should not require a source, but that one shouldn't remove content that has been there for awhile, excluding the criteria I mentioned further up, from articles one comes across. We hadn't discussed Jimbo in that conversation at all. What I stated on my talk page comes from my personal views on several events Jimbo has been involved with, including the Larry Sanger letter on his talk page a few months ago, which, if I recall correctly, was still fresh in my mind at the time of my comment.

Great answer; I just wanted to poke in here and say that, yes, it was a nice, open, friendly debate about the eternal deletion/inclusion question, and it was productive. Per m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.  Chzz  ►  19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

15. Looking through your contributions I noticed a few (~5) declined A7 speedy deletions in the past few months. That is not too bad (everyone has A7s declined at some point), but still I would like to know if this has changed your understanding of WP:CSD#A7. As an admin would you give new articles some time (say an hour) to develop or would you delete A7 candidates on sight.

A: I watchlist all pages I add speedy deletion tags to, so I know whether or not an admin deletes them, in an effort to learn from my mistakes (should there be any). I'm a pretty observant person, so I've learned a lot from doing that. However, like you said, everyone has declined speedies at some point. As an admin, I would probably give articles that might meet the A7 criteria some time, perhaps 30 minutes to an hour from creation, to develop. If it doesn't meet the A7 requirement at that point, especially if there's been no effort to improve it, then I would probably delete it.

Additional optional question from Plutonium27

16. Does your username refer to this?

A: No, Killion is my surname. :-) Killiondude (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Keegan (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I know Killiondude very well, both on-wiki and from his work on the IRC help channel. He has always been courteous and helpful, calm in the face of adversity, and prepared to ask for advice when he needs it. I think he'll make a great admin.  Chzz  ►  08:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Very good edits, summaries, cotribs etc. Trusted user by me, so I can't see any reason why not. AtheWeatherman 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. I've seen him about whilst helping editors in CAT:HM. He is a trustworthy candidate and will make a great admin. Jozal ^(talk) 10:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
5. User:Pmlinediter/RfA_rationale Meets my criteria. Pmlineditor 10:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Helpful candidate, knows what he's doing. No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Looks good. Best of luck. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
8. iMatthew ^talk at 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Without reservation, yes. → ROUX ₪ 14:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Support User has clue and is trustworthy. hmwithτ 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Great editor. Lara 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
12. You've always come across as sensible, and you're getting some strong support here from people I respect, so it's very likely I'm going to support. OTOH, you haven't answered any of the optional questions yet, so I'll check back from time to time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, I've respected his work for quite a while. I assumed he was either an admin/had some serious character flaw like slaughtering puppies that would kill a perpetual RfA, because his editing work is brilliant and I couldn't see why he hadn't gone up for RfA before. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Looks good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Support yea. Good noms. — JoJo • Talk • 16:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - beat the nom? Candidate looks great. Please don't slaughter any puppies. Tan | 39 16:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - Killiondude is definitely ready to be an admin. Good luck! Airplaneman ^talk 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. I believe I saw Killiondude's edits somewhere and was impressed--though I'm not sure where. No problems I can see after a quick check. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Absolutely. Not only is his anti-vandal work very impressive, he's constantly a civil, reasonable, and helpful editor to have around the Wiki. (X! · talk)  · @771  ·  17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Support No-brainer. Qualified candidate. Shappy ^talk 20:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Support, for the Killions! -- Mentifisto 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Support LittleMountain5 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Res2216firestar 21:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Support He won't go on a mass deleting spree. Has clue. Has my support.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent user. Triplestop x3 23:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Always liked this guy. -shirulashem^(talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Support One of the few non-controversial soon-to-be admins. No problem here! ;) Cheers, I'^mperator 00:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Support per Ironholds, my own interactions, and apparent lack of puppy slaughtering. wadester16 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
32. Support I have never had a negative encounter with Killiondude, and can't think of any other reason to oppose. Firestorm ^Talk 01:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Support as nom. (What's a watchlist do?) Law _{type! snype?} 01:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - Very reasonable, supportive, and helpful. Would perform and function well as an administrator. PseudoOne (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Support per excellent editing history, admirable demeanor, and trustworthy nominators. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. Why Not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
37. Support, seems fine to me. Wizardman 03:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Support It's harder to review candidates without toolserver working, but all indications are that he'd be a good admin. Timmeh 03:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
39. WP:AGF--Caspian blue 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
40. I know Killiondude from IRC, Wikipedia, really anywhere, he's very nice, and understands policy and guidelines very well. Good luck.Cubs197 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
41. Support and happy to do it. Killiondude does a lot to help users requesting it, and I think wanting to use the tools for that purpose is extremely admirable. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
42. Support See no concerns and good track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Yes, absolutely. →javért ^stargaze 09:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - looks to be a good contributor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
45. May as well add to the unanimous pile-on. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 10:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Absolutely, GDonato (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Good track record, good contribs. Will definitely make a good administrator. UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Definitely! ≈ MindstormsKid 15:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - Highly trustworthy user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Prodego ^talk 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
52. Merovingian (T, C) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Jeni ^(talk) 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
54. You have done a very good job in many areas of the encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
55. Support I trust this user. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Although I have never knowingly run into you, you seem like the right user for this "job". Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. I've been impressed with Killiondude's manner of conduct, both on and off-wiki. Killiondude has been a huge help in dealing with some of the maintenance backlogs that I've created, and I'm confident he will make a fine admin. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
58. Support This editor seems like he is very dedicated to the cause, and is very involved in the community. I belive he has a good track record. GL Killiondude Kjp993 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    Support Candidate has earned my trust, and provided he doesn't slaughter too many puppies, will probably be a great admin. His answers to the questions, 7 and 12 in particular, demonstrated his views sufficiently. Firestorm ^Talk 05:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    You've supported already, number 32. — Σxplicit 05:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

59.  Support Deo Volente and Deo Juvente, Killiondude. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
60. No concerns. Tiptoety ^talk 06:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. My only major objections are this and this. The first demonstrated that you were at the time unfamiliar with attribution requirements, the second is one of your more serious misapplications of speedy deletion criterion A7. However, these are from some time back, and in my opinion outweighed by positive contributions. I trust that you will not repeat those mistakes. I thought your answer to Q14 was very good. decltype (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong support, oh hell yes. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - (a) I know Killion from IRC, where he is consistently helpful to any and every user seeking help. (b) I honestly thought he was already an admin... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Not an admin? Huh. BJ^Talk 06:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. I like the answers and like the attitude. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
66. Support should be a net positive. Plastikspork (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
67. Kusma (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
68. Seeing the identity of the nominators is more than sufficient for me to support. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
69. Bit young for my personal taste, but I have a good feeling about this one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
70. Support – we already have too many shady and/or inactive users with the mop. Don't let us down. MuZemike 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
71. Support. Good contributions. Sensible. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
72. Support No issues trusting this user to perform. MBisanz ^talk 17:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
73. Support – I feel late! Great editor, no reservations about giving him the admin tools. JamieS93 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Insert boilerplate expression of surprise this editor isn't already an admin.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
75. Support No worries, will be a net positive to the project.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
76. Your content and communication look good. As a result, I'm confident that you'll be a great admin. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
77. NW (Talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
78. Support. No issues here. — Σxplicit 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - Killion has shown a dedication to Wikipedia through consistent editing over an extended period and has exhibited a calm and thoughtful demeanor on this RfA and on Wikipedia in general. The answers to the questions were good and I see no serious issues in his past. Should make a fine addition to the ranks of administrators. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Great answers to the questions posed in this AfD. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
81. Support has clue, and I like the answers to the questions above. Seems a net positive. fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 05:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
82. Support Yeppers - I've seen his work - no doubts here. — Ched :  ?  11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Of course. Per everyone else, nothing left for me to say. ≈ Chamal ^talk 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
84. 'Rainbow Support --Mixwell!^Talk 21:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
85. Support - Great candidate. When I saw someone with 100% positive I had to look and see if I could find what others were missing. I have been unable to find it. While your answer to Q8 worried me a bit (because we don't want admins or editors to guess how to do things without doing a bit of research) it was years ago, and your answer to #6 is so perfect I've forgotten about #8 already.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
86. Support I've come back just to vote for The Transhumanist and Killiondude. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Cordial and intelligent. Can be counted on. -- œ^™ 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Looks good. I'd prefer to have some conflicts to look at for how you would handle the stress, but it's hard to fault you for not getting involved in drama. Otherwise nothing but positive interactions with Killiondude. Stays focused on content, good at assisting users via helpme, requests for feedback, and other forums. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
90. Support - I think this candidate will do a good job as an administrator Harlem675 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
91. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
92. Acalamari 19:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
93. Support - No reason to oppose. OtisJimmyOne 19:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
94. No problems here. Now I'm just wondering if we can get a unanimous WP:100... --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 19:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    As long as Keepscases doesn't come along, you won't be lying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

95. Support per pretty much everything above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
96. Of course. ceranthor 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
97. Support. No concerns. -- Banjeboi 01:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
98. Support Of course. DarK'Vic 04:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
99. Support However I am afraid that this might be a WP:Snow :D SparksBoy (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
100. Support great work to date, expect even more... Tiggerjay (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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.