Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UberScienceNerd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Gray Porpoise

[edit]

Final (70/3/1) Ended 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gray Porpoise (talk · contribs) – There has been one user who has helped me out since the time I joined wikipedia...It is of course the user who I am nominating. Gray Porpoise has displayed excellent civility and has never lost his cool. He is a common visitor to the Wiki-space by having 916 wikipedia space edits (that is - WP:MOTTO). Also a very good contributer to the mainspace. Other than that I have nothing else to say about this generally great wikipedian and I am honored to nominate him. Seadog ♪ 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: A frequent newpage patroller, I have an interest in helping with deletions, particularly speedy deletions and user categories for discussion. I will also perform regular editing on protected pages that need proofreading, and check deletion history to make sure pages have not been unfairly deleted. In addition to this, adminship will increase my regular editing activities in pursuit of bureaucrat status.
Not to mention, I won't have to bother anyone when I want to fix a copyright violation or clean up my user subpages.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My apologies to those who think this is important, but I have not expanded an article to featured status. However, I have started new pages, including a couple (such as Melanie Martinez) that have expanded beyond stubs, and some (such as Pandanus spiralis) that could quickly do so if they had more contributors. I have also completely rewritten Ahmed Faseeh, Cloak of invisibility, Oobi, and Quizilla, the former two of which were copyright violations and the latter two of which were just of poor quality. Though at first my focus was on creating as many articles as possible, I have come to pay more attention to writing more extensive and well-referenced articles. (Tickling is the fact that they still turn out short, but I guess writing an encyclopedia isn't just one organism's work!) Rewriting and starting articles is enjoyable for me, and I find it pleasing as my way of adding to our growing database of knowledge. (Sorry if that sounded awkward.)
I also contribute to Portal:Cetaceans, which was recently featured. Although I haven't changed its design or scheduled selected content for it, I've done behind-the-scenes work on it such as adding news and discussing the selected content.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: No major conflicts have arisen during my editing in the past. I try to stay out of arguments, and when minor debates occur, I keep them at civilized debates, not edit or flame wars. Even then, I find Wikipedia to be a hobby, not a stress-causer. I plan to remain this way in the future.

Optional questions from Avriette (talk · contribs):

4. Specifically how will administrative privileges increase your editing throughput, rather than decrease? (given a fixed amount of time, any time spent on administrative actions necessarily reduces the time editing)
A: *rejoices at addition of questions* Though I'll actively participate in admin chores, I'll also keep up my non-administrative editing to remain a well-rounded contributor.
So you intend to spend more time on the project overall?
That is correct. I used to sometimes feel like I had nothing to do... but then I discovered the backlogs.
5. You mention you've had no "major" conflicts with other users. Can you show me a few of your "minor" conflicts?
A: I've never been right in the middle of an argument. I don't start arguments or edit wars, and other Wikipedians don't start conflicts against me. There are conflicts that could be considered major (e.g. Esperanza's deletion discussion and Minun's request for arbitration) that I have participated in, but I myself did not play a major role in them, just adding my outside opinion.
6. How are you like to react to a user who is not "civilized"?
A: I try to be more civil to uncivilized people than they are to me. If given the ability to perform blocks, I would try hard to calm down trolls before resorting to the ability.
I guess this is what I was getting at. How do you propose to 'calm down trolls' before blocking them? The general consensus seems to be that there is no negotiating with trolls.
When I say that, I mean that I'll give them a good deal of advance warning, and try to compromise. Of course, there are those who never give up, and those trolls will likely end up on the wrong end of the banhammer after awhile.
7. At what level of activity or amount of time do you estimate you would be fit for bureaucratship? (this question asked because the user mentioned "pursuit of bureaucrat status")
A: Since RfBs are not nearly as common as RfAs, I haven't had many opportunities to observe that kind of request, and so I'm not as familiar with it. I will probably try for at least another year of editing experience before requesting bureaucratship. My main interest in bureaucratship is helping with Wikipedia:Changing username. Thank you for asking these questions. I'll be glad to answer more.
You'll want to look here, here, and here. Good luck.

Optional questions from Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs)
I know I'm a little late to the party with these questions. Nevertheless, they are based on the concerns raised below, and I hope that a response might be valuable for many of the commenters. Fair warning, these are more complex that often-asked admin questions. Like many questions involving consensus-based issues, there may or may not even be "right" answers.

8. What is your view on the proper use of secondary accounts/sockpuppets? When, if ever is it appropriate for a user to employ multiple accounts? How does an admin determine when such use is "absusive"? Are any of these answers different for someone who is an admin on (presumably only) one of their accounts?
9. How does an admin determine the dividing line between prohibited "social networking" and beneficial "community building"? How, if at all, does that division influence wikigames, especially taken in light of recent activity at MFD? Are there different answers to these questions for User-space content versus Wikipedia-space content?
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator.__Seadog ♪ 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. My only real interaction was during the Esperanza MfD discussion. This user was civil and reasoned, and that's enough for me. —Doug Bell talk 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    <sigh>Changed to oppose per undisclosed secondary account mentioned by Moreschi. —Doug Bell talk 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I haven't really had much interaction with you, but I have seen your edits on Seadog.M.S's talk page, and some of your contribs. A very high and balanced edit count, and a good job on the articles you created. On most users, I would make an oppose or neutral vote (that's the only word I can think of, even though this technically isn't voting) for no GA or FAs, but you've just done too many other great things! —The Great Llamamoo? 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. G.He 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A fine user - crz crztalk 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Uber awesome editor! He/she is a valued contributor on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kimchi.sg 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I have seen Gray Porpoise contribute to many community discussions and I believe that GP will make a fine administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good user, knows what he's doing. --Majorly 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 3x edit conflicted Support!! yesisupportbeforeigeteditconflictedagain.--Húsönd 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Looks like a good editor, no reason to think that they wouldn't make a good admin too. (aeropagitica) 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support clearly a good contributor.-- danntm T C 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Mop him! Sharkface217 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I've lost track of how many times I've seen you in seperate places, which is a very good sign. -Amarkov blahedits 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cetacean support! (Radiant) 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - fit for the porpoise Bubba hotep 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I have seen this user in action, though never interacted. He seems to know what the guidelines for deletion are, and seeing as that would be his main area of admin-contributions, I think he deserves a support. James086Talk | Contribs 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Fun, friendly user :) AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Friendly, easy going. Simply south 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support John254 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good user Tyson Moore es 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I have seen Gray Porpoise around, always up to something good. Dar-Ape 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Helps with maintenience and articles. Nice guy. Need no other reason. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm this message and I approve Mailer Diablo! - this message 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, yep. --Terence Ong 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-29 04:58Z
  26. Support Great editor with great edits! You will do well! Jam01 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Supoort What do you think I'm going to do?  Jorcogα  08:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good, hard worker. And a nice guy to boot :) riana_dzasta 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Great wikipedian in my opinion. Would make a great admin. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I've seen this user a couple of times around. He is a great candidate for adminship. ← ANAS Talk? 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom. --Ars Scriptor 15:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Welcoming and helpful; I have encountered his useful contribs a number of times in my editing sessions. Katalaveno 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per nom and comments. Good contributor, good welcomer, no concern candidate will misuse tools. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Responsible and dedicated. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support You have beat me to reverting vandalism many times. Keep up the good work.Grayson d. k. 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Accuse the "crazy funlovers", but this guy just makes Wikipedia a nice place to be. bibliomaniac15 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I was originally going to support based on my experience of Gray's edits, then I saw the comments about the alternate account and wondered whether I'd still be able to support. I've read all the comments and GP's explanations are more than sufficient for me to support. Thryduulf 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Nice vandal fighter, responsible. IronDuke 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. No explanation is necessary, an extremely familiar name. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good, responsible user, ready to have the tools. Hello32020 21:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I've read this user's talk page, and I Support this RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. My familiarity with this user's attitude and demeanor, as well the fact that I've yet to see questionable behavior on this user's part, begs of me a definite support. - Che Nuevara 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I don't see any reason to oppose here - the games are out of place, but I'm not that bothered by them. Otherwise this seems like a good editor who would do good things as an administrator - it seems like he will only help the encyclopedia. --TheOtherBob 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Not only have you had only freindly interactions with me (or maybe I was just reading what you recorded) but also your edits have been very good and helpful to the community. I'm Randfan, and I approve of this message! By the way the 2nd Porpoise account is very thoughtful, and I think an Admin should be creative and smart that way. —¡Randfan! 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support User:Michaelas10 mentions the extremely familiar name. I, too, know that the Porpoise is everywhere and haven't seen anything that should prevent it from passing this RfA. WODUP talk/contribs 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per nom. :) Switchercat talkcont 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I've never had any trouble with this user, and he is a contributer of the finest quality. If he had some FAs, my vote would be "Strong Support". Good work GP! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: Per nom.  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  (Ŧ) 17:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support excellent user. Hut 8.5 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - User:Gray Porpoise has always been very tactful and understanding in the edits that I have seen him make, and he has had good support for his positions. I believe that he would be an excellent admin. —Cswrye 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Looks good. NauticaShades 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I can't see any chance for abuse here, and really can't see how a second account (which has been clearly labeled as such since the very day it was created) will effect this user's abilities as an admin. -- AuburnPilottalk 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support - A good contributor who will be a good admin. Doc Tropics 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. good work!!!! I belive in you ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Bucketsofg 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom. Michael 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - duh. Great user and vandal fighter; I'm surprised xe isn't an admin already. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. support, per answers. I want to let you know that I'm still a little iffy. I really hope you do continue in the manner suggested by your answers. If you do, we really need users like that. Please don't hesitate to ask for help if you're even a little uncertain if a certain action is the right one to take. It's far better to ask somebody else than to risk being the tinder for a larger fire. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. They are not intended to be a reflection of you. ... aa:talk 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. --Rudjek 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. ABITW support — Do well by us - Williamborg (Bill) 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support - in my admittedly limited contact with the nominee and the answers above, I have had repeated contacts with the above editor and have never seen any reason to have a negative thing about him. I have every reason to believe that he will be as effective as an admin as he has already demonstrated himself to be as an editor. Note:only after starting the response did I note how often I have in fact encountered the nominee. I guess, because I never saw anything to question, the name didn't register as quickly as it should have. My apologies for my incompetent editing on the fly.Badbilltucker 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per nominator and comments above. Sarah Ewart 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per nom. Just H 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support -- ßottesiηi (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Weak Support Think he should have disclosed other accounts without having users search for them, but he's still a great user. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign in) 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per nom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I believe this candidate will do a fine job serving Wikipedia's porpoise. Dionyseus 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Great candidate and a fine editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. A whole alternate account for Games? Games like this stuff? That will help the encyclopaedia how? Just doesn't feel right. Not that I suppose it will make any difference. Moreschi 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he uses it for welcoming users and test purposes.__Seadog ♪ 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He may do. As the subpage shows, it is also used for other purposes! Ones which I find objectionable. Moreschi 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording on that page was intended to be humourous. I created it with RfAs in mind - I didn't want to make you guys/gals think that the majority of my edits are taken up by testing, etc. when you looked at my contributions, because they aren't. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To tell you the truth, your comment here does not help your cause. Stating that the purpose (or is that porpoise?) of the alternate account was to segment off a portion of you edits for the purpose of creating a more favorable impression for this RfA makes it unlikely now that I will change my oppose below. I think you should consider why this comment of yours here is damaging, as this also reflects on your judgement. I truly am sorry to be opposing at this point as I have had only favorable interactions with you, so I hope if this RfA is successful that you will reflect on my comments here as you carry out your admin duties. —Doug Bell talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug: (1) You stole my pun, see below. (2) I think what GP meant was that not that he wanted to hide the "welcoming" edits from scrutiny on RfA, but that GP didn't want to be suspected of making them for the purpose of favorably influencing an RfA, nor get a reaction that "it's hard to see your substantive edits amidst all the welcomes and such" (the way vandal-fighters with lots of AWB edits sometimes hear "how can we see what else you're doing amidst all those reverts and warnings?"). Newyorkbrad 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the pun theft, I didn't do it on porpoise. :-) What you say may very well be true, but concealing the edits is not the way to approach it. The candidate is given ample opportunity to point people to whatever they think is relevant and to discuss the points you say. I am, however, not at all fond of resumé grooming for an RfA, and that is essentially what GrayPorpoise is admitting to above. That combined with the lack of disclosure pushes this over the line in terms of judgement for me. I seriously doubt if my oppose or Moreschi's oppose are going to derail this RfA, so the purpose (I restrained myself) of this oppose is to impress upon the nominee the importance of full disclosure and exercising good judgement. —Doug Bell talk 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much the undisclosed account that I minded - though it isn't clever - but basically what cheesed me off where those Games in the subpage link that I provided. We are not here to play Games - we are here to write an encyclopaedia. The task of Wikipedians is to write that encyclopaedia. Everything else is secondary. Games are evil enough without the game edits disappearing onto an undisclosed secondary account. Moreschi 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that with real purpoise. Perhaps the nominee thought it was an all-purpoise encyclopaedia. :) Bubba hotep 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) that's it from me![reply]
    I am getting sick to my back teeth of these "purpose/porpoise" puns. It's just not funny and is starting to annoy. And no, it isn't an all-purpose encyclopaedia. It's just an encyclopaedia.
    To respond to Gray Porpoise below - well, you didn't exactly bring the existence of that account to our attention - AGF and all that. What is more, why not show a little faith and trust??? RFA voters are not, as a rule, stupid. Nor do they make snap judgements based on edit counts and nothing else. Moreschi 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that I forgot about the account when filling out the RfA questions. I am assuming good faith- no, the best faith possible- out of you, but I just believe there may be some misunderstanding. Your opposition is well thought out, and this confusion is my fault. Further explanation: That "Games" page was created before the recent deletion discussions concerning "games" on Wikipedia, and I now have a thorough understanding of it. My opinion on this matter is here, and I hope to propose a guideline based on it. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reluctantly oppose per Moreschi (changed from first non-nom support<sigh>). It's much more because the nominee failed to disclose the use of alternate accounts, but also partly because of the content of the account. —Doug Bell talk 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain? --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm missing it, I don't see any mention of the alternate account you use mentioned on either your user page, nor on this RfA. I think that users need to disclose information about any other accounts they may use, and that especially applies in an RfA. In an RfA people need to be able to evaluate the user's contributions, and this would include all contributions regardless of account. The lack of disclosure is, I'm sorry to say, a significant lapse in judgement. Since the three cornerstones of admin qualification for me are maturity, civility and judgement, I'm afraid I have to oppose based on your judgement in failing to disclose. —Doug Bell talk 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a link, albeit not a prominent one, to this account from Gray Porpoise's userpage under the heading "My Doubles", which has been present since September 21. (The other "doubles" are non-controversial impersonation-prevention accounts.) While Doug Bell's comment is correct in theory, in this instance I see no motive to conceal the existence of a "welcoming" account that could only have strengthened the candidate's record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did miss that link because of the confusing formatting of the page. That does significantly reduce my concern. However, for the moment at least, I'm going to remain as an oppose because I think this should have been prominently disclosed on this RfA instead of being something people had to search for. It isn't simply a matter of motivation, and I assumed no ill motivation, but primarily regards judgement. —Doug Bell talk 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also meant to point out that while I assume no ill intent, obviously the existence of the account did not strengthen the record in the eyes of Moreschi. That's why full and open disclosure is important. —Doug Bell talk 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not try to "hide" or "conceal" anything from RfA participants. What I meant was... How do I word this... Metaphor time! Imagine someone putting on a pretty mask to hide their ugly face. That is a representation of what some of these comments suggest. What I really mean, metaphorically, is that I made the account so that the ugly face could be seen, but the mask would not go unnoticed. Do you get the gist of it? I wanted to avoid inexperienced RfA participants taking one look at my contributions and saying, "Gray Porpoise fools around and never helps the encyclopedia." I did not want to throw you off. If you wish, and if this RfA is successful, I shall indefinitely block my alternate account and not mess around with the "games" on Wikipedia. As for welcoming, I didn't want to make it appear that I spent more time chatting with people than improving articles, which I don't. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A few afterthoughts:
    1) I don't prioritize "games" above normal editing.
    2) I may or may not be male. You may refer to me by any pronoun you wish.
    3) I'm not "hiding" edits in the sense that I don't wish for you to see them. I'm:
    3.1) separating them so they are not misleading
    3.2) a very forgetful being
    3.3) one who reads and tries to obey guidelines and policies, but may interpret them differently from others --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Whether or not the alternate account is appropriate, I can't by any stretch of the imagination see it as "undisclosed". I, for one, knew about it already, but I think it's quite prominently displayed on the userpage -- most people with sockpuppets don't admit to them at all. - Che Nuevara 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should rename the subpage, so others can easily notice it. If you support of or object to that idea, please say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gray Porpoise (talk • contribs) .
    To be clear, I never used the term "sockpuppet", because I in no way am trying to make any implication that sockpuppetry was the purpose of the alternate account. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply either that I had made that claim, nor that GrayPorpoise had that intent, but it pays to be careful with your choice of words. —Doug Bell talk 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturally, and I'm sorry for any potential misunderstanding. I don't actually consider "sockpuppetry" a negative term; I simply use it to mean any sub-account of an editor's main account. There's a general sentiment on Wikipedia that, if someone has multiple accounts, they're doing something underhanded. I don't make that assumption. I happen to think that WP:SOCK should undergo a massive overhaul, but that's a discussion for another place. Apologies again for any implications I accidentally made. - Che Nuevara 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. oppose - per Doug Bell, I had intially stayed away from this one as being neutral, but the idea of going out of the way to look good on a RfA doesn't sit well with me --T-rex 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Something doesn't quite feel right about this user, but I don't know what. Ral315 (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment, usually neutral or oppose votes have more elaboration than "something just doesn't quite feel right." You should show valid evidence as to what you might think would be an issue.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can figure out what doesn't feel right, please let me know so I can improve on it. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This neutral comment needs to be explained a bit further, or it will serve no porpoise at all. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I have the copyright on the misuse of that word (see Support #15) ;) Bubba hotep 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the candidate should open another account just to deal with the pun-related issues. This would, of course, be a single-porpoise account. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He would have to do it on porpoise. Would you forward him the porpoisal? Bubba hotep 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing the "something" is the temperament of this user. Humorous user may be distrusted by some people. That's just my interpretation of Ral315's comment. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, Ral's a pretty humorous guy. bibliomaniac15 05:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see minor quibbles with alternate accounts, but this user's dedication to the project is clearly porpoiseful. IronDuke 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/UberScienceNerd&oldid=1270573712"