Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lomn

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

Lomn

Final (54/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 00:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lomn (talk · contribs) - I've been at Wikipedia for not quite 3 years. Shortly after arrival, I jumped into involvement with CSD, AfD (then VfD), Recent Changes, and so forth. That backed off for a combination of tiring of wading through vandalistic garbage (particularly the image vandals) and a recognition that, at that point, my ideas of what was "encyclopedic" didn't really mesh with consensus. Since then I've made an effort to grasp the policies and nature of the project, which means a lot of lurking at ANI and a loose awareness of the Wikipedia-wide Arbcom cases. I've also spent a lot of time watching various admins to get a feel for how Wikipedia works at the individual admin level.

As for WP participation, most of my day-to-day activity is at the Reference Desk, thus the unseasonably high contributions to project space. It's one of those things that's of debatable value to the project, but I find it rewarding from a self-education perspective and I've hopefully added value to the other users over the years.

As far as article space, my edits tend towards stub-sized rather than FAs. I'd like to get that Great American Football Article written, but I've never managed to set aside the time for it, and all the topics I listed out when lamenting the lack of a relevant Wikiproject 3 years ago have been well-covered since. I also go with the "revert vandalism / fix grammar" on an as-I-see-it basis, frequently resulting from research done for a particular Reference Desk topic.

From a policy perspective, I consider myself well-versed. As noted, I've lurked regularly through ANI and related pages for some time, observing the evolution of applied policy. I've observed a great many discussions about consensus and voting and how, though we may wish otherwise, the two are linked and require negotiation to establish the precise balance between them. I've realized that none of us are perfect and that it's fine for me to respect a user I don't agree with. Most importantly, though, I've realized that, should I be promoted, it does not fall to me to be the arbiter of all things. It's fine to say "I don't know, why don't you ask R instead" or to have a proposed idea rejected. Wikipedia is not, and will not become, a game I have to win.

If promoted, I pledge to place myself open to recall per the default process (subject to future tweaking of the criteria during non-controversial periods -- I'm not entirely on top of the ins and outs of recall systems and reserve the right to modify the process as my understanding improves).

My comments for RfA review may be of interest.

As a self-nom, I think it's vitally important that I offer prima facie evidence that I am a Colts fan. May we consider that the end of discussion should Kurt weigh in? Thanks. — Lomn 00:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Per self-nomination norms, I accept. — Lomn 00:39, 26 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 intend to start small. While I've regularly lurked at ANI and other places for years, the prime mover for assembling this RfA was the recent RefDesk fun with a troll who disrupted site layout and operation. The admin bit would allow me to respond more effectively should further stuff like that result -- and unless that particular Bugzilla fix is implemented (not linking, per WP:BEANS, but can supply if requested), I expect it'll continue to happen.

Beyond that, I've got no real desire to play an Enforcer role. Rather, I see involvement with the admin equivalent of wikignoming -- stuff like the "noncontroversial maintenance" provisions of CSD G6-8 and the like. They're things I've encountered while editing that can easily be resolved. Given that I lurk at ANI, being available for the occasional "WP:X is backlogged!" posts seems reasonable, too.

At some point I expect I'll see "doesn't demonstrate need for tools because of lack of participation at X". I'll peremptorily say "nonsense". That's a specious argument that needs to go away. Suppose I spent time at AIV that I presently spend at the Ref Desk -- all I've demonstrated is that I've already got all the tools required to report vandalism. How would I demonstrate that I need the tools relevant to AIV? Try to press a block button that isn't there? I can't.

A couple caveats on this:

1. This distinguishes "shows need for tools" from "shows understanding of how the tools should be applied". The latter is perfectly valid.
2. This is a recently-formulated rant untested by debate. If I'm way offbase and there's a good measure, please feel free to discuss.

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

A:

• Day beacon was a DYK that has held up, I think, quite well in the intervening 3 years.
• I took I formation from an initial stub to a respectable article core, and later referenced the history section.
• I provided a good bit of cleanup for Wide receiver and expanded some of the associated terminology. The sourcing is admittedly weak, but I think it's better than nothing (and it's also non-controversial, which helps).
• I provided some technical details for the rules at Fumble, which also includes some of my first efforts at collaboration via talk page rather than unilateral boldness. I'm not often editing in areas where I find that strictly necessary, but I've continued to maintain efforts to leave notes regarding major changes.
• Along those lines, I recently junked unreferenced lists from NHL Entry Draft while adding a referenced section on how draft order is determined. The latter filled a talk page request, and the former's removal was noted along with my reasons why, thoughts on re-adding, and a diff link to the removed content for easy reference. I think this makes for a good illustration on where I take action with regards to WP:NOT -- there's a little OR, a little indiscriminate listing, and too much scale to be of use to the average reader.
• Image:Swinging_strikeout.jpg has nicely illustrated strikeout for a couple years now, though I wouldn't be surprised to see the recently-added Image:UT_softball_2007.jpg supplant it -- it's a much crisper picture.

In most of these cases, I don't see these contributions as necessarily "finished". I'd like to dredge up better references for the football articles, for instance -- just as soon as I find a book of appropriate scope for my shelf.

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:

Sure. A recent example would be User:Ericthebrainiac's editing behavior. Eric is a user who's been around for give-or-take a year now, and I've kept an eye on him for virtually that entire time. He doesn't get Wikipedia, and a lot of his stuff is entirely out of place here, but he also contributes productively to his area of obsession. Telling Eric for the umpteenth time that the soap opera he's writing doesn't belong on Wikipedia is frustrating -- and that frustration shows through in some of the comments on his talk page. However, I've also done my best to suggest productive outlets and remind other editors (when block discussions have arisen) that he's also contributed usefully.

On the whole, though, I think it's fair to say that I've maintained an ability to back away and shrug stuff off. Per a general adherence to Eventualism, I'm fine with not sweating the small stuff.

Additional questions from SJP

4 What are 10 reasons to delete an article? I know there's more reasons that merit an articles deletion, but I only want 10.

A

Eh, it depends on what you call a "reason". There's the speedy deletion policy, which is narrowly defined along the lines of articles which consist solely of gibberish, vandalism, external links, copyvios, and the like, and stretches into the "no assertion of notability" clause. While it's skirting the limits of appropriate behavior to both tag and delete under speedy, this can be roughly characterized by "deleted under pre-existing consensus".

Then there's prod and AfD, which are deleted by article-specific consensus. There exists a common set of justifications for deletion -- lack of notability, original research, hoax, and many others, but those justifications are not themselves reasons for deletion. (Prod is an intermediate case, but I class it here on the basis of the gap between nomination and action)

Finally, there's WP:BLP, the exact status of which is... uncertain at this point. I'm not inclined to make a sweeping statement as to how the community will come to terms with "Administrators may use the... deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary" clause will shake out.

5 If a new user came up to you asking about our blocking policy, how would you summarize it for him?

A

Blocks are a last resort via technical means to protect the encyclopedia from user-centric malicious editing (as opposed to page protection as article-centric protection). The goal is that they remain protective while avoiding being punitive towards the user, though that line frequently blurs when blocks are applied repeatedly.

From a new user summary perspective, I don't see a need to visit block vs ban, or where topic bans fall in the hierarchy of last resorts, or probably even the protective-vs-punitive (though I think it's likely the first of the advanced topics to come up). — Lomn 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 6a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A:

As noted at Q5, blocking can generally be described as a last-resort means of protecting the encyclopedia from user-centric disruption. To ensure good faith, this should generally follow warnings, discussion, and the like. Users shouldn't go from editing to blocked cold.

However, in cases of particularly egregious disruption, the latter can be suspended. Say a malicious editor uses the vulnerability referenced above to replace the entire browser window with a penis -- block. Period. That's the "AGF is not a suicide pact" bit. Immediately follow up with the explanation at the user's talk page as well, though I expect any user who falls into this category already knows full well why they went from zero to block.

• 6b. ...a page to be protected?

• A:

Complementary to the above, protection is the last resort for page-centric disruption. George W. Bush is the canonical example of page protection, though Taco Wallace is the article I've been involved with recently where this is an issue.

Taco is an unfortunately-named football player who's skirted the edge of professional leagues. At present, he doesn't seem to be active with a team, and thus there's little in the way of developing content. Due to the name, however, there's a popular set of fictionalized trivia akin to the Chuck Norris jokes that get added periodically, fueled by a football-related website I frequent (which is how I became aware of the thing). Semi-protection is a reasonable means to discourage this repeated vandalism without unduly impacting the collaborative process.

Full page protection is a trickier proposition, as it shuts down said collaboration and runs counter to the ideal of an "encyclopedia anyone can edit". That said, it's periodically necessary. My recent work around FPP has been at the Ref Desk regarding the aforementioned vulnerability. We've escalated most, if not all, of the RD templates to indefinite FPP because of a combination of (1) severe threat to encyclopedia usability and (2) lack of need to edit the pages.

• 6c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A:

When it meets speedy deletion criteria, and particularly when the deleting admin reasonably believes that consensus would agree that it meets said criteria. As I discuss in Q4, this is a "by pre-defined consensus" activity, and admins should be careful not to stretch that definition unnecessarily. If a speedy-tagged article skirts the definitions, or if {{hangon}} has been added to an article that could likely improve to skirt the definitions, then it's appropriate to move to prod or XfD.

• 6d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A:

When the good to the encyclopedia is substantially greater than would be the case if procedure was strictly adhered to. I think my "immediate block" example above is a good such case, though the incredibly broad nature of IAR makes it impossible to cover the full scope of possibilities.

Spoken generally, IAR is an injunction to editors to exercise common sense, tempered by their experience with how such actions have been received before. Suppose I go with the example above and immediately block a user for image vandalism per IAR. That's fine. Suppose then that consensus is that I screwed up -- in addition to undoing, apologizing, and the in-the-moment responses, I have a responsibility to bear that consensus in mind should I consider an IAR block in the future.

If in doubt, we've got lots of editors (or admins, if it's an admin tool matter). If I'm not reasonably certain that IAR is appropriate to a given case, there are plenty of other people who can handle it.

• 6e followup added by candidate: the above answers all assume the normal stuff like not exercising admin tools in an active dispute, with the note that "dispute" is not equivalent to "has edited in the area". By way of example:

I've been involved with content work and POV issues at World Financial Group for some time, as well as (I think) recommending blocks for some of the more tendentious editors there. Exercising blocking or protection tools at that article would be inappropriate.

I've reverted straightforward vandalism at Taco Wallace. I would have no qualms about exercising tools at that article. — Lomn 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• 7. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A:

I think more important than determining consensus at most article talk pages is bearing in mind that such consensus is generally more mutable than elsewhere. Talk page discussions are likely to garner less participation than an XfD would on the same page, and so I feel a more hands-off approach is beneficial. If an idea hasn't garnered much discussion, and opinions seem divided, try it anyway. See how it shakes out. If that isn't successful, then increasing awareness to find a more trustworthy consensus is appropriate.

For XfD pages, policy and precedent makes up a larger portion of the consensus determination. Arguments that reference policy carry more weight than those based on emotional appeals or personal preference. Most XfDs are pretty straightforward. I think the most common headache a closing admin encounters is an attempt to synthesize a mix of non-keep results (merge, delete, transwiki, etc) into a workable single result when it's clear that a "no-consensus keep" is a consensus undesired close.

I've got no meaningful experience with DRV and don't feel qualified than to answer beyond a copy-paste of the guidelines provided there. As with XfD, policy is a more relevant issue, but I'm not confident analyzing the minutiae of "disagreeing with the original decision" versus arguing that "the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". The two can manifest remarkably similarly. — Lomn 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• 8. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A:

Start with an examination of the recent edit history at the article, and follow up with a browse through the contributions of JD, JR, and JQ if it appears that excessive reversion and edit warring is present. Since a common belief is that reporting first can provide a leg up in an edit war, "trust but verify" is an appropriate approach.

Supposing that the evidence establishes a generic two-person revert war, the protection policy is out, and JD and JR need a warning that the behavior to-date is non-productive and inappropriate. The users should be pointed to initial stages of dispute resolution -- using the talk page and requesting a third opinion likely being the most practical at this stage. Part of the warning is a notice that should the behavior continue unchecked, blocks may result, with a note regarding 3RR likely being appropriate. Per "preventative not punitive", the blocking policy doesn't need to be exercised at this stage of a generic edit war, either.

The flip side of this is that proper evaluation takes a bit of time, which we don't always have. If that's the case, a note to JQ as to alternate venues such as AN3 and/or a note to other admins is appropriate. — Lomn 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Lomn: Lomn (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/Lomn before commenting.

Discussion

• I read your answer to Q6 at User:Lomn/RfA review with interest. What are your thoughts on User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA, and how much do you think that should apply to people other than Kurt? (And why?) giggy _(:O) 01:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  I concur with the thoughts you've laid out. While I disagree with Kurt's premise, it's a legitimate position to take, and power hunger is certainly a valid concern with regard to a promotion that is not easily reversed. As for how it applies beyond Kurt, there's a couple of comparative points (and I'm not sure precisely which you're interested in):

  • Validity of a single-criterion opinion: Yes, given the similar provisions of Kurt -- good faith, original premise, and such. There are other editors at RfA whose comments suggest a single major criterion, be it FA participation, edit count, AFD participation, or what have you. I remain similarly skeptical that those criteria taken singly are of much real value, but that's just my take on it. On the other hand, there are the Kurt mockers you reference -- there was one user a bit back who posted "I support all prima facie power-hungry self noms to counterbalance Kurt" (or something close). That's not an attempt at building or forming consensus, and shouldn't be treated the same way. Which segues to...
  • The right to not be abused: From a civility standpoint, there's not a justification of "I don't like what he said, so I'll get snippy!" We're only human, and snippy failings will happen, but we shouldn't be looking to justify them -- we should expect a rebuke and receive it gracefully when it comes. The community needs to have a low tolerance for picking fights, particularly. — Lomn 01:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. To pre-empt Kurt, if this user had asked me I would have nominated. – iridescent 00:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support does a lot of good work. --B (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. You are definitely experienced, just be careful around blocking :). Malinaccier (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support per the excellent comments here. RMHED (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support All that work of actually helping people at the reference desk means that you are not going to go crazy with the tools, and will have them to hand when you need them. --Stephen 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Capable of independent thought. ssh, don't tell anyone, they don't like that. giggy _(:O) 01:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Dlohcierekim 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - Good user, needs the tools. macy^talk 02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I have no doubt you would use the tools for good, and I believe wikipedia will be just that much better a place for your use of them. I think your work at the WP:REFDESK is of great value. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Absolutely! Longtime user and solid editor. JeanLatore (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support No issues. I also like some of your comments above. America69 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - No issues, no evidence for possible misconduct or accidental misuse of the tools. Also, per RMHED. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - liked your rant and the "low tolerance for picking fights" as well. — Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support I think that self-noms who call attention to the fact that they are self-noms are offering prima facie evidence that they are self-noms who call attention to the fact they are self-noms offering prima facie evidence that...whoa, wrong carousel ride. Yes, a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I would like to start of this comment by thanking you for your work here. You have done a fine job answering questions at the reference desk:-) My main reason for supporting you is because you haven't indicated you don't under policy, so I doubt you will misuse the tools, and from looking at your contributions you seem to have a good attitude. I will be asking you some questions to confirm you have a grasp of policy. My only issue with you is that your contributions indicate you will be a very inactive admin. However, the positives far outweigh the negative.--SJP (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - WP:RD needs more admins. You're qualified. --Sharkface^T/_C 05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Definitely. I'm sure you'll do just fine. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. Lomn has done a lot of good work, I have seen no reason to believe he would not be a great admin. Rje (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Support per answers thus far. Cant imagine you'd abuse the tools. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Support no problems. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Support, yes please. Neıl 龱 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Been here a while, trustworthy, good question answers, has a good idea of when he'll use the tools, nice sense of humor etc --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Support will be a great admin. LittleMountain5 14:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Support. Another one that I was working towards nominating shows up here before I can get to it :) Absolutely support, your work here is valuable, appreciated, intelligent and careful. Your reference desk work is superb. Yes yes yes! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. Lots of experience, participation throught the project including admin-related tasks and noticeboards, good answers to questions. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Inspiring. Exceptional user. Rudget (logs) 17:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
28. M♠ssing Ace 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Because you got Kurt to go neutral. That is a feat. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Yes. Of course. Voices of reason and collegiality always get my support (or should, anyway). Doesn't feel the need to chime in on every trifle under the sun, but when he has something to say, it's thoughtful, and one listens (I do anyway). Good answers. Very helpful contributor at the reference desk. Could be even more helpful with tools. Strong support. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Looks good. --cremepuff222 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support No evidence that user would misuse the tools. Good contributions to the community so far.--Finalnight (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Support It'd be hard not to. As noted in the neutral section, nomination was Brilliant!--Koji†Dude ^(C) 13:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Strong Support You appear to be thorough, honest, well-intentioned, and smart to boot. Plus, a nice sense of humor, which in my humble opinion is the most important thing for an admin to have. You will do well, I have no doubt. Good luck! L'Aqùatique[review] 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Strong Support This user is extremly helpful and has a wide knowledge of WP Policies and Guidelines. I've encountered him before, and his comments have really opened my eye at the right and wrong on Wikipedia.--LAAFan 03:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Support A self-nom that not even Kurt can oppose? Lomn must be doing something right. :-) faithless (^speak) 08:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Good contributions from a user with a sense of humor. Why not? Spencer^T♦C 18:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Support, per kmweber. –xenocidic (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - seems like a highly capable user, although I understand and support what Lenticel says in his oppose. However, that being on its own, I don't want to oppose, based on that only, as this user has a host of fine contribs. Lradrama 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - abnormally positive clue quotient.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Support per shows no need for the tools - but clearly indicates that they can be trusted with them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Good user, can be trusted with the tools. Midorihana みどりはな 05:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
44. Support →Christian.И 16:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - per recent excellent work on NHL Entry Draft --T-rex 20:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - Consistent editing over a long time period, good answers to the questions, no evidence that tools would be abused. Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
47. Orane (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Most of the questions I had in mind have been answered well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Looks good, seems like this user can be trusted with the tools. GlassCobra 16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Support I've seen this user around, clearly know what they're doing. Good luck ——RyanLupin • (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
51. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Support without reservation - courageous move (self-nom). -hydnjo talk 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Support -- per Kurt's neutral! = ) Best of luck! --Cameron* 09:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - meets my standards, no concerns. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per your eloquent defense of Kurt's behavior. Had you posted this on somebody else's RfA or to aid Kurt then I'll be your strongest supporter. This is because then you have nothing to gain and your reputation to lose. I'll greatly respect any editor that does that even though I don't oppose nor support Kurt's behavior. However, putting it here means that you have something to gain from defending Kurt's behavior. I cannot trust you with the mop as I see that you'll go out of your way just to appease someone as long as you get something from it.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

   Hey. I understand, but disagree with, your position. Perhaps (s)he seriously, truly, actually, believes in what (s)he said above in relation to Kurt? I don't know... I'm not particularly impressed by opposition for voicing one's opinion in RfA as opposed to elsewhere (in an ideal Wikipedia, people's behaviour would not change because they were on RfA... we know this doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean we should promote it). Have I misinterpreted your comments? giggy _(:O) 10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

   "He", if you prefer to save keystrokes — Lomn 13:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

   As I said, I'm neutral on Kurt's behavior and I respect everyone's right to opinion as I come from a land where personal opinion is suppressed. Journalist deaths in the Philippines is comparable to that of Iraq. People's true intentions and behavior are not changed by an Rfa or any event that is truly valuable. They are exposed. For example, one can create a facade of strength (let's say a bully) but will crumple when something unexpected happens (say like crying when the one that he picked one most of his life).--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

   Lenticel has made an extremely good and valid point, and I respect him for being the only person to have the confidence to point that out. Maybe he is right, maybe wrong, I don't know, but it is a fair point all the same. But, I am reluctant to oppose, purely on the basis of this. Lradrama 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Because that was pretty brilliant... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: Now I have seen everything on Wikipedia. Heh, not that I am complaining--Finalnight (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

   It's nice to know that even Kurt can be persuaded on occasion. :P I can't blame your for opposing for self-nomination (though it's not always bad), but I'm pleasantly surprised. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 22:10, 29 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.