Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lifebaka

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

Lifebaka

(74/1/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lifebaka (talk · contribs) - Lifebaka is a user who I have noticed around for a long time at Deletion Review. He always makes thoughtful and considered contributions there based on a good knowledge of policy. He also often helps out by notifying the deleting admin of deletion reviews where this has not already been done. Lifebaka often has to use the cached version to base his sensible contributions such as [1] and [2] on - the tools would be a definite help here in enabling him to see the deleted versions.

Lifebaka has been on wikipedia for over a year now and has made over four thousand great edits. His contributions to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, as well as at deletion review, demonstrate a good knowledge of the speedy criteria. He is always civil and has an excellant edit summary usage. Lifebaka is very helpful with new users often welcoming them and his talk page has numerous thank you's from users who have appreciated his assistance. He may not be the most prolific article writer but is always willing to assist those who are. In short Lifebaka is a helpful, civil user with good knowledge of policy who will put the tools to good use in areas where more admins are always needed. Davewild (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to continue my work at deletion review, where I started working in December of 2007. The ability to view Special:Undelete would be a great boon to me there, as the Google cache is quite often lacking and it is therefore very difficult to properly judge speedy deletions. This DRV is a great example of where it would have been useful, though I trust the admins who usually participate there to correct me and other non-admins when we make such mistakes. Another is here.
I would also continue the work I do with the criteria for speedy deletion. As Davewild said, I make myself known at WT:CSD whenever I feel it necessary. Most of my work with the CSD, however, have to do with the time I spent as a new page patroller and reviewing the current candidates at Cyde's list of speedy deletion candidates, which I do currently. Mostly now I do the latter, making sure that all the speedy candidates are tagged properly and according to the best possible CSD available; I also frequently decline speedies which I feel are inaccurate (two examples of which from today are Elikkattoor [3] and Anderson Biro [4] ,though in the case of the latter the speedy tag had already been removed by an anon twice) or which aren't included in WP:CSD (these I usually change into WP:PRODs instead, if the reason is a valid one).
I also believe that I would once again become more involved in WP:AfD and some other deletion discussions. I have, for the most part, kept out of these since my participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination), which I will cover in question 3 below. I have quite a bit of experience at WP:DRV evaluating consensus in XfDs and plan to do some work in closing them.

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

A: My most major content contributions have been at Magic: The Gathering and the set articles (from Time Spiral forward, though I've taken a look at the Mirrodin block articles). I will be the first to admit, however, that I am not a major content contributor. I have not written any featured anythings, or any good anythings, nor have I significanly contributed to any to my knowledge. Mostly my contributions have been to WP:DRV, to the new pages patrol, and to quite a few AfDs (which I haven't contributed heavily to since April, again, see below). I'm not sure these would qualify, but these areas are where I have the most experience and the most knowledge.

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 haven't had any major edit wars ever, and only a few minor ones with vandals which I barely even remember anymore. The only major thing that has caused me stress is my experience with the article Myrzakulov equations, which was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination). I first was introduced to the article when I stumbled accross Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination) during the perusals of the AfD daily logs I used to do. It was early in the AfD itself, you can find my first addition here. I then didn't pay the matter more attention until it was nearly closed, and most of the drama there had already happened (User:R_Physicist left because of his bad experiences at the AfD). I attempted to bring User:R_Physicist back to the project through private emails, but he expressed that he didn't want to as he believed that there are problems with Wikipedia that prevent academics from contributing. Because of this I became privy to his real world identity. A few weeks later, the article was nominated a for deletion at AfD again, but this time with some strange "rules" regarding how editors were supposed to do threaded comments, i.e. actual discussion. All that fun is located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination), and it was quite crazy. Over there User:Barstaw (who contributed to the previous AfD as User:89.218.75.202 and signed comments as "Ngn") made some wild and baseless accusations of users who had contributed to both of the AfDs (particularly User:R_Physicist and User:Proscience) and appeared to attempted to solicit help outing these users. Because of this, User:Jimbo Wales indef blocked her. A few days after this, Barstaw e-mailed me and again attempted to get the real life identity of R_Physicist out of me. I put up a message on WikiEn-l, and nothing has come of it since, but it put a very bad taste in my mouth and I didn't edit much for about a week afterwards. I've been involved in a few other dramas tangentially, but this was the only one that really hit me hard.
In this case I asked another editor to take the issues to WP:ANI for me because I wasn't going to have internet access for a day or two and I didn't want it to wait. I also notified R_Physicist of this privately through email. In the future if I encounter these sorts of privacy issues as an admin I would immediately indef block the editor making personally threats and then note this at WP:ANI. In less extreme cases (hopefully meaning any I'll actually come across) I'd simply make the notification on ANI and let another admin perform the block.

Additional question from AnotherSolipsist:

4. In October, you added a PROD tag to an article that was "in use,"[5], and then deleted Giano's complaint against this from your talkpage.[6] Was this an error in judgment?

A: Woah, I didn't even know that was Giano until just now. At the time I wasn't aware of who he is. It was an error in judgement to add the tag, but I removed the talk page message because I felt he was being overly hostile and I didn't want to see it every time I went to my talk page. I instead let the issue drop, since I was aware I was in the wrong. It was the first time I had encountered the {{inuse}} template, and has mistaken it for {{underconstruction}} instead. I should have instead appologized.

Your answer concerns me because it seems you only think this was an issue because it was Giano you were dealing with. Discuss. giggy _(:O) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. This was an issue because I ran into a template I hadn't encountered before and as such didn't notice it. Like I said, I had thought it was {{underconstruction}}. Also like I said, I did not at the time know who Giano was so I could not have thought that he was part of the cause. Had it been any other editor I would have responded the same way. I appologize if that's the way it appeared from the first two sentences of my answer, I was merely expressing that I hadn't known who the run-in had been with previously.

You would have reacted the same way - you'd have removed the message from your talk page regardless of who it was? How do you think a newbie would react to this? giggy _(:O) 00:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would have. Now I wouldn't. I'm fine when people disagree with me, and while it can sometimes be stressful if they chose to use strong language, a better solution is always to simply reply in a calm and measured way, and sometimes to mention WP:CIVIL as well. A newbie would react badly if I did something similar, I'm well aware, as they view admins as having a higher status than normal users (even though they don't). If such a situation came up now I would try to explain to the user why I did what I did and why policy supports what I did.

Non-pointless question from ImperfectlyInformed: do you notify creators when you put up a PROD message, especially when it is a newbie, or do you "leave it to the watchlist"?

5. I ask this because as a new contributor I created a couple stubs which I had planned on working on. They were promptly deleted and I was not notified. Needless to say, I don't think it is good etiquette, and I'd like to hear your thoughts. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A: Usually. Whenever I tag something for PROD or speedy "out of the blue" without previous warnings, I notify the creator. However, when patroling WP:LSD for bad/wrong/improper speedy taggings, I do sometimes switch them to PROD without notifying the author, trusing that the previous speedy-tagger did put up a notification. And, of course, sometimes I just forget to (in fact, thanks for jogging my memory).
I do understand exactly where you're coming from on this one. I've seen plenty of cases at WP:DRV where users ask for deletions to be overturned because they were notified. It's very bad form not to, and sometimes ends up with users getting the wrong impression about the processes. The most recent example of this is here. It usually doesn't ammount to anything, but it's horrible to have people so disenchanted with the whole 'pedia.

Additional Pointless Question from User:Stifle

6. Are you a judge?

A. No, but I was a rules advisor from April 2007 to April 2008, but I've mostly stopped playing recently and haven't taken the time to renew it. Besides, I still get the MTGRULES-L (and the test is pretty darn hard).

General comments

• See Lifebaka's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Lifebaka: Lifebaka (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

• I just filled out the questionnaire for WP:RREV/Q. It can be found here, for those who would like to read it. I realize this is late in the RFA, but I didn't want to make my answers there until late so I'd have more time to think about them. Cheers everyone! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support Looks good. A review of a selection of your last 500 edits uncovered no problems. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support As nominator. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Looks like he will use the tools great. Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Very strong support Nominator made his/her case, and it's as solid as it gets. Unless someone finds evidence of unruly behaviour, which I doubt will happen, it's impossible to not support. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Contribs look solid, seems to have good attitude about them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support I see no reason why not to, and your contribs look good. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support RMHED (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. I've seen the editor around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - seems eminently trustworthy, and has a clear need for the tools. Scog (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Edit count seems somewhat inflated due to use of some automated tools, and the high number of welcomes, but edit counts don't matter, and editor seems nice and relaxed. Some slight concerns elsewhere, but they aren't important currently, and are not enough to withhold my support. Besides, adminship isn't a big deal, so why the hell not? Mahalo and cheers! --Ali'i 20:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Weak Support I really see no issues to suggest that you will abuse the tools and you are a great editor, but after looking over what JulianColton had to say, and the link he added made me wonder. Anyway, you look like a great editor. Good luck!!! America69 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - a couple of minor concerns raised but none really give me pause. I see a mature and thoughtful editor who knows what he's doing and how he'll use the additional tools. ~ mazca ^talk 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support I think Lifebaka is trustworthy, and would make a great admin. LittleMountain5 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Trustworthy, friendly editor. Quickly, easily acknowledges and learns from mistakes. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Good editor who would be a valuable addition as an administrator. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Solid experience. Wants to work in deletion area. Go for it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
18. This is the last time I'll forget you Naerii 21:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, seems fine. The point outlined by Julian doesn't concern me; mistakes happen. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I generally support making all regulars at DRV admins as it makes the work much easier if you can see the deleted content. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
21. He's not an admin? I'm falling down on the job. Wizardman 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. I see every reason to expect this user to do good work with the tools. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
23. This DRV regular was starting to become visible on my "I should look into nominating them at RFA" list. As is becoming a pattern, the nomination occurred before I did so. I am comfortable with his judgment. GRBerry 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong Support.Clearly knows what it takes and has the experience for the job.Gears Of War 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Support. I've seen you at DRV (and honestly, I just assumed you were an admin). You meet my criteria for adminship easily. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Nothing seriousley worrying. You've got the coveted "KojiDude's Thumbs Up!" trophy. I better not see it on eBay--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Per K76's cmts above and the fact I think you'll make a great admin. Good luck!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Thought-you-were Support Good luck. GlassCobra 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Support I was still composing my suggestion that you stand for admin when I found I was too slow about it. DGG (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Support I too have seen lifebaka around DRV and AfD and think s/he makes well-reasoned arguments on both sides of discussions (obviously not at the same time) and discusses decisions politely. I see the issue JulianColton raises in the neutral but we're human, it happens. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support experienced user, (s)he needs the tools. macy^talk 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - knows what the tools are for (watch the AfD backlog shrink!) and will have good uses for them. — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Thumbs Up -- Because everyone is saying "support" and it is getting monotonous. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Support, I've seen this editor numerous times in deletion debates and the contributions there show familiarity with policy and procedure. Looks to be an easy support. Shereth 02:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - Can't find any reason not too --T-rex 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Solid contributions. MBisanz ^talk 07:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Support This user has demonstrated a clear need for the tools, has indicated he grasps the policies he'll be working with as an admin, and his attitude seems "fit for the job".--SJP (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Reasonable person that I've seen around contributing productively.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. A great asset to DRV and would be a great asset with the tools. MrPrada (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Good, honest answers to the questions, no glaring red flags - room for improvement, but nothing to stop me from supporting. The issue raised by question four doesn't concern me too much; looks like an honest mistake, and Lifebaka admits as much. Should be okay. faithless (^speak) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Support The only issue I saw doesn't seem to be a major problem, so I'll support. Good luck, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Support →Christian.И 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - per my criteria. --Chetblong (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
44. Good Luck with you new position as Admin, I'm confident you'll get it! Keep up the good work!Bigvinu (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
45. Strong support Another asset to Wikipedia. I'm sure your work will be even better when you have the tools! Well done and good luck! = ) --Cameron* 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
46. [insert RFA cliche here] I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
47. Support, looks like a solid candidate. krimpet✽ 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Support A candidate who makes the occasional mistake, responds politely when advised, and then checks the diffs, makes any necessary correction, apologises to and thanks the reporter, and then gets on with editing the encyclopedia? What on earth is this place coming to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Bwrs (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. Input at AfD always seems well thought out, communication on this editor's talk page is excellent. No one has brought up any serious (to me) problems, so I doubt there will be any in the future.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. If you can stomach DRV, adminship should be a breeze. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. shows can be trusted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. Neıl 龱 12:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
54. Support The candidate is thoughtful and the project would benefit if he had the extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
55. M♠ssing Ace 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
56. --cremepuff222 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
57. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
58. Only voting because I've already said something on this RfA. As I said on my talk page, I wasn't feeling convinced... I could vaguely recall the name alongside something that made me go "bleh" at DRV at some stage, but I couldn't recall any details. Maybe he was replying to some crap as opposed to stirring it. So I just looked over the current version of DRV and saw some good thoughtful commentary. Take it easy if you ever step outside your clear comfort zone, eh? giggy _(:O) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
59. Support. No concerns. His work at WP:DRV looks good. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
60. Support as the user can easily be trusted with the tools and that is the only important and fair criterion...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 22:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
61. Strong support. One of the most thoughtful and articulate of the regular DRV contributors. Truly a classic case of the "I-thought-he-was-already-an-admin" cliche. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
62. Support A consistently insightful and well-reasoned contributor to DRV who would use the adminship wisely. Townlake (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
63. Support While there might not be as much edits as some users like, this user has half of his edits mainspace. He also has months of experience.--LAAFan 02:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
64. Weak support - WTHN?  Asenine  08:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
65. Rudget (logs) 10:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - meets my standards, this is an interesting WikiElf. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - excellent AfD / deletion review participation, and extremely throughful answers to the questions which show plenty of Wikipedia-knowledge. Good candidate. Lradrama 20:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Has an intuitive and reasoned grasp of Wikipedia policy. On DRV I've always found lifebaka to be civil and helpful, so much so that I had assumed he was already an admin with years of experience :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    Support A review of DRV contributions show a solid knowledge of policy and good communication abilities. Meets my two biggest requirements for adminship, so a support is definitely in order.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the double !vote. Senility is obviously setting in, or else I must really like this candidate! :)

69. Support. Excellent candidate. — _Maggot^Syn 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
70. Support. Good participation throught Wikipedia, especially in the deletion/undeletion processes. Good answers to questions and seen this user around quite a lot. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
71. Support Very nice. --Meldshal42 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
72. Superfluous support and barely squeaked it in at that. :) I've observed this contributor around and been very impressed with the work I see. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
73. Support, I saw all these supports, and I thought it looked fun! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
74. Good user. Acalamari 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. He always makes thoughtful and considered contributions there based on a good knowledge of policy. , I am not convinced of that per my latest contact with him/her input at WP:DRV. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. You seem like an excellent editor, and I was going to support, but looking through your talk page, I saw this. While it's not the worst, I don't want admins running around making quick decisions without investigating the situation fully. I'm just going to sit back and watch for now. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — _{Change to support Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)}

An error rate of 1% or so is better than most of us people working on speedy manage. I don't get bothered until someone gets to 10%, or is clearly using incorrect criteria. DGG (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He corrected the error when it was pointed out... in my experience there are admins who just never reply or reply in buzzwords and don't do anything when you go to them with a similar problem. --Rividian (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Agree with User:Juliancolton point, but think that you are an excellent editor. --Kaaveh (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral as I am concerned about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters from Epic Movie (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hardy (The Hardy Boys) (we can't Wikipedia:Merge and delete per the GFDL, so the arguments really needed to just be "merge"). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Mothers in Disney films, I am somewhat concerned that the candidate did not return to the discussion to comment one way or the other on the various revisions that resulted in a redirect rather than deletion. Now, with that said, the candidate made a strong case at Wikipedia:Artigcles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (2nd nomination) and was open-minded at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Alien and Predator timeline .28closed.29 where the candidate changed the initial stance based on civil discussion and acknowledgment of the discovery of sources. Thus, I can't really oppose or support at this point as I'm somewhat conflicted here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough on the Epic Movie one, but the Hardy Boys one seems a little odd to oppose for object to - it doesn't sound like he's asking for a merge-and-delete, but rather a "delete, or merge instead if this condition is true". ~ mazca ^talk 06:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not opposing, I'm "neutral". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   My bad, I noticed the AfD that concerned me and wanted to reply quickly before I dashed off to work! Should have re-read the section I was in. ~ mazca ^talk 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   No problem. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   No disrespect intended, Le Grand, but all it takes to address your concern about the Epic Movie AfD (and I guess the Hardy Boys one, too, although I agree with macca regarding the nature of the !vote there) is the following conversation: "Hey, Lifebaka, we can't merge-and-delete on Wikipedia." "Really? Why not?" "The GFDL, which our content is licensed under, says we have to preserve the original article's edit history." "Oh, okay." Bang, problem solved. It would seem to me that situations like this would be excellent opportunities to educate the candidate in the deeper workings of Wikipedia, which are, quite honestly, pretty esoteric (especially when it comes to GFDL issues). - Revolving Bugbear 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   Regardless, he is entitled to his opinion in this matter. In truth, I'm well aware of WP:Merge and delete now and these issues would not happen again, but it's not the first or last time I had made statements that have shown my ignorance of certain policies. Beyond the "preserve hitories" portions, I tend to try not to worry to much about the GFDL, as it's horribly confusing and for the most part is ignored when people reuse Wikipedia content (at least so they keep saying on the mailing list). Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   Of course he is, and I respect it 100%. My point was simply that RfAs are often a wasted opportunity for a learning experience. I learned things during both of my RfAs. If you hadn't been aware of M&D, you would be now. - Revolving Bugbear 19:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

   Am I detecting cynicism relating to the grudge mentality of RfA, Bugbear? We can't have that :-) giggy _(:O) 09:22, 27 June 2008 (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.