Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zagalejo

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

Zagalejo

Final 110/4/3. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Zagalejo (talk · contribs) – I'm happy to offer you Zagalejo as a candidate for adminship. He has been active in the project since 2005 and has amassed an outstanding 61,000 edits. His specialty in Wikipedia is basketball, which is a WP:BLP violating minefield that only very few administrators participate in or even have some knowledge of. He has nearly 2,000 article talk edits, mostly solving disputes between other editors or discussing certain edits about improving articles; see here here and here for recent examples, and another 3300 user talk, and 792 project talk edits. He is active in WP:RFPP [1][2] [3] WP:AIV [4] WP:SPI [5] WP:AFD [6] [7] [8] and the proper noticeboards, almost all relating to his subject area [9] [10], and an occasional FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive3. He's also active in Chicago related topics. And considering that NBA free agency and the NBA draft is right around the corner (and knowing from experience it's among the biggest BLP violating onslaughts on Wikipedia yearly) I feel that the community can trust Zagalejo with the tools. Secret ^account 05:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Zagalejo^^^ 01:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Well, there's one specific thing I really want to do: I'd like to be able to semiprotect certain sports biographies during free agency periods and trade deadline periods, when inexperienced editors inevitably rush to report rumors as truth. As experienced editors know, we need to wait until the teams have made official announcements about any transactions. (Things like this can always happen.) I mainly want to focus on NBA articles, because I think I can speak with the most authority on those topics, but I'd be willing to help out during similar situations in other sports. I'll check out WP:RFPP periodically to see what's new.

I don't intend to stray too far from the tasks I have described above. I'd be willing to semiprotect articles if I observe more general BLP violations, or other serious forms of disruption. And if I come across a situation where a block or a page deletion is necessary, I'll do what needs to be done. But I don't intend to start meddling in affairs I know nothing about. I'm not interested in playing the role of a Mary Worth or a King Solomon.

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

A: I've never been one to brag about my content contributions, because I think there's room for major improvement in every page I've edited. Whenever I look at older material I have written, I always find a phrase or two that I want to change. That said, I know you want some specific examples of my work. I have been involved in a number of featured articles over the years, such as Michael Jordan and A Streetcar Named Marge. I've also written a handful of DYK entries (Ziggy (elephant), Charles F. Gunther, Bohemian National Cemetery (Chicago, Illinois), The Natural History of Iceland, etc). Admittedly, those DYK articles aren't very long, but I thought I'd mention them here to show the breadth of my interests.

Unfortunately, over the last few years, I haven't had much time to add substantial original content. I've devoted most of my efforts to monitoring several hundred biographies of basketball players, which attract a wide range of problematic edits. The sad fact is that most of these articles haven't improved much at all. Most of them are still pretty bad; I've mainly tried to keep them from getting worse. I don't enjoy that kind of work, but someone needs to do it, because too many of these articles are chronically underwatched. I can't think of many reasons to be proud of that work, but I guess I could say that I've developed a fairly comprehensive understanding of the problems sports articles face, and how such articles develop over time.

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. If you've been around as long as I have, you're going to encounter some stress from time to time. Our users come from many different backgrounds, and have different expectations of what Wikipedia should be. That naturally leads to conflicts. I'll admit it: I've gotten a little snippy from time to time. I'm not proud of those moments, but I'm human.

My approach to settling conflicts varies, depending on the situation. Sometimes, I just need to remind myself that the other person in a debate wants a good encyclopedia, like I do. If I know the other person is acting in good faith, then I'll try to be respectful and calmly argue my case.

Of course, anyone who's been stuck playing chicken with a troll knows that it's not always that simple. There are a number of users who are absolutely determined to cause trouble, and if you run into them, then the old platitudes won't make you feel better. When that happens, there's not always much you can do but walk away and hope that someone else will eventually back you up. One of the lessons I've learned in seven years is that I need to pick my battles. I shouldn't feel obligated to deal with every problem I see. If I try to do that, I'm just going to burn out. I love this old xkcd cartoon; it really helps put things into perspective.

;Additional question from Callanecc

4. As an administrator would you be open to recall? And, optionally, if so, would you please briefly outline the criteria and process you would use, such as User:Lar/Accountability and/or sample process? Callanecc (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Question withdrawn Callanecc (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

5. Who is your least favorite player in the NBA? Why?

A: Ha! I didn't expect this. :) There are too many selfish knuckleheads in the league that I can't name just one. Zagalejo^^^ 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Bbb23

6. Do you think that as an admin it would be beneficial to the community for you to gradually move out of your comfort zone (sports) and use the tools in other areas of the project, while still remaining active in your area of expertise?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A: Well, I'm capable of doing other tasks, but I want to make sure that the work I've been doing all along still gets done. Unfortunately, there aren't enough hours in the day for me to maintain my same level of activity at NBA articles and also get involved in a dozen other things. On balance, I think it's better that I spend my time working in an area where I understand most of the subtleties than in an area that is foreign to me. Zagalejo^^^ 23:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from jc37

• 7. Quote: I won't deny that I'm cynical about the "anyone can edit" philosophy, but I'll respect the rules that we have in place.

What do you mean when you say that you're "cynical" about Wikipedia's philosophy? - jc37 02:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• A: Frankly, there are a lot of people on the Internet who shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. Cranks, racists, horrible writers, extreme nationalists, etc. "Anyone can edit" is a nice slogan, but you have to be realistic, too. With what I've seen over the years, I think I've earned the right to be a little cynical. Zagalejo^^^ 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• 8. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A: IAR is a good policy to have. It's a reminder that we shouldn't blindly follow all the rules; we should also use common sense to make sure we're doing the right thing. But to be honest, it is a little bit hard for me to think of many specific situations in which I would invoke IAR as my sole justification. The policy/guideline pages are huge, and already discuss a lot of the exceptions and gray areas. Perhaps one example when I might invoke it would be in the case of a banned editor who has written articles as a sock. We are allowed to revert edits made by such editors without further explanation, but I think there are situations when that might not be the best thing to do for the encyclopedia side of the project. People are banned for different reasons; some banned editors did contribute good content. I can envision some limited situations in which I'd argue for a banned editor's new contributions to stay intact. It would, of course, depend on a lot of factors; it's not something I'd do impulsively.

To answer the other part of the question: "Being bold" is a good way to get things moving with an article, but you should be respectful of other people's opinions. If people have reasonable arguments against your edits, then it's not fair to bull your way through and do what you want. We are a collaborative project, and intelligent people can have very different views on certain issues. One should always make an effort to discuss the issues. Zagalejo^^^ 06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• 9. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: "Consensus", on Wikipedia, is a weird thing. It doesn't mean a unanimous decision (which is a rarity around these parts). To determine a consensus on Wikipedia, you have to look at the strength of the arguments in relation to policies or guidelines. I do think there are many situations where policies and guidelines allow for multiple interpretations (especially in the realm of notability); thus, I would expect many discussions to be closed without a consensus. It's not a perfect system, but we have to do the best we can.

RFCs, RMs, XfDs, and DRVs examine different kinds of issues, so you have to focus on different policies and guidelines when determining consensus. RFCs are a very broad category, so it's hard to make blanket statements about them. Perhaps the most serious RFCs involve BLP issues, so you want to make sure the people discussing the problem acknowledge the BLP policy in their arguments (along with verifiability, OR, and the other key policies). In RMs, you'd want to see that people are aware of WP:TITLE, as well as broader issues like WP:NPOV. XfDs are also a broad category, so I can't make too many generalizations. If it's an AFD discussion, you definitely want to see people explaining how the article satisfies the notability criteria. Notability would also be a factor in many DRV debates, but such debates might also require discussion of the deletion policy itself, or even the very notion of consensus.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for, so if I've offered nothing of substance, feel free to ask follow up questions. I don't expect to be closing a lot of RFCs, RMs, XfDs, or DRVs. I'd rather be a participant in the discussions themselves. Zagalejo^^^ 06:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, normally when I ask questions, I link to User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria, so to give the candidate an idea of what I'm looking for in asking. I'm a very strong proponent of consensus on Wikipedia. My apologies for any lack of clarity.

And while most candidates have that opinion when at RfA, my experience is that almost invariably that they end up helping out in ways they never imagined.

Also, I would like to support, as quite a few people whose opinion I respect have already commented. But after reading some of the "additional" comments, and going through your contribs, (though I wasn't going to ask them) I think I would like to ask a few more questions.

• 10. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: That's an important question to ask. I'll talk about protection first, as it relates to the situations I described in question 1. There might be many situations in which it appears that I am "involved", if only because I'm the sole regular user who has been watching a page. But understand this: in sports, there are a number of unequivocal facts. We can almost always report trades/free agent signings/etc correctly as long as we are patient. Thus, I would be willing to semiprotect certain articles I have already been editing if it seems that too many users simply don't understand the facts, or are too willing to report rumors as truth. But also understand this: I don't want the article to stagnate or go out of date. When a transaction is being rumored, I'm obsessively checking the team websites and other sources, waiting to see if there is an announcement. The semiprotection shouldn't be seen as a punishment, but rather as an attempt to bring order out of chaos.

I wouldn't use semiprotection in more complicated situations in which I'm involved, such as debates about undue weight. I'm only talking about issues concerning clear-cut facts. If there's room for debate about an issue, I would seek outside opinions, to avoid concerns about a conflict of interest.

Now, about blocking: I don't intend to start blocking people for prematurely reporting sports transactions. Such users are almost always acting in good faith. If it gets to the point where such users' behavior has gotten out of hand, I would alert another admin, and let him or her decide whether to block.

I don't really intend to issue too many blocks at all. As things stand now, I only have to visit WP:AIV once every few weeks. If I have had any past arguments with a user, and it came to the point where a block seemed necessary, I would let AIV look at the situation, because they usually seem to handle problems in an efficient manner. (Also, if there has been past conflict between the other user and me, any blocks I issued myself could be seen as a conflict of interest.) The one exception would be if the user is making blatant and serious BLP violations (such as falsely accusing a living person of serious crimes). In those cases, I would block the user. The relevant policy pages would support me.

I certainly wouldn't block someone for vandalizing my userspace (as long as the edits were strictly directed at me, and not an article subject or another editor). I have a thick skin, and I'm not using a real name, so I'd be willing to wait for an administrator to take care of things if it became necessary.

Unblocking is not something I've ever thought much about, but I don't believe I'd face too many hurdles with that. I have made a conscious effort not to become too "buddy-buddy" with anyone on the website. That's not saying I'm aloof or unapproachable—I still try to treat people with respect and kindness, and offer support when necessary—but I do think it's useful to focus primarily on the edits, and not on the personalities. Otherwise, it becomes difficult for someone to be genuinely objective. (I really hope people don't take that the wrong way.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that I didn't really respond to the precise question that was asked here (how would I determine if I am involved). I would say that if I've already expressed clear opinions about a certain issue, or have had extensive interactions with a particular user, there is always the possible that my future administrative actions could be seen as a conflict of interest. I would try to avoid such administrative actions, although policy wouldn't prevent me from taking action in cases of clear-cut BLP vandalism. And, as I tried to argue at length above, I think I would be justified performing certain administrative actions to prevent unequivocal factual errors. Zagalejo^^^ 01:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• A: I would examine the edits, to understand the nature of the debate. It may be the case that one user is clearly a vandal, in which case, the solution would be pretty straightforward. If that's not the case, I would to talk to both of the users to encourage them to use the article talk page(s). If that doesn't resolve anything, I would threaten to fully protect the page to force them to discuss things. (Full protection is necessary, so that the registered user doesn't have an unfair advantage.) If it gets to the point where I have to make good on that threat, I would ensure that the page did not contain problematic material about living people before locking things up. (If the material under debate is a BLP concern, I would err on the side of exclusion.) If possible, I would try to reword parts of the article so that the problematic issue could be avoided altogether. However, that's not always a realistic option.

I should say that if I don't really understand the debate at all (for example, if the people are arguing about particle physics or deconstruction), I would leave a note on an appropriate noticeboard, rather than making things worse. Zagalejo^^^ 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• 12. Also, you do quite a bit of interaction with IPs (link). Though I have seen a few collaborative questions, for the most part there are a lot of warnings. Based upon your answer to #7 above, do you feel that IPs in general should not be able to edit articles?

• A: Well, I would argue that most of those IPs do deserve a warning. Sports articles attract a high number of problematic edits. However, I recognize that many IPs also contribute valuable content, so I don't want to make generalizations about them. There are plenty of IPs who have been helpful at basketball articles, and I recognize that banning all IPs would result in widespread stagnation. What I really would like to see, eventually, is a system that simply prevents certain edits from being visible immediately. But implementing something like that is complicated. Zagalejo^^^ 23:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from M'encarta

• 13. What will you do in the next few years?

• A: As I suggested above, I'll probably spend most of my time helping out with basketball articles (and other sports articles, if necessary). I'll continue to pay attention to the other miscellaneous things on my watchlist, and I would love to be able to do some real writing if I get a chance. I only expect a small percentage of my edits to be administrative actions. Otherwise, I don't have a specific "five year plan" or anything. I'll see what happens. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from StringdaBrokeda

• 14. Has it occurred to you that you have not answered Keepscases question and subsequently that Keepscases has not yet !voted?

• A:

What an utterly pointless question. This isn't a free for all, these questions are supposed to help editors make up their mind about the suitability of candidates at Rfa. How on earth does this do that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, if I had this question at my RfA, I wouldn't have answered it. It seems unnecessarily something, I'm not sure what. Strike-worthy comes to mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Calm down Shawn. Yeah Dennis I can see all the reasons to strike it. Feel free. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TruPepitoM

• 15. Are you an update inclusionist or an article deletionist?

• A: I'm not familiar with the phrase "update inclusionist". As far as the general inclusion/deletion debate goes, I'd say that I have moderate inclusionist sympathies. At least, I think I'm more willing to research a topic before making a decision about it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"Update Inclusionist" means you update pages right after some event (say, breaking news) was happened. So, what will it be? And please state your answer in layman's terms. TruPepitoM (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on the nature of the event, and the quality of the sources reporting it. There are times when it is good to wait a little while until all the facts are clear. Zagalejo^^^ 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Stats on talk Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Having not had time to do a thorough review, I would like to note that of this user's 62,450 edits, 65 have been auto edits (hot cat). Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Secret ^account 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
2. It's no secret for me to support, too. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Support An unusual candidate in many ways, but in the right ways. There are some holes in his experiences, but I get a strong feeling that he won't bite off more than he can chew, and it looks like he is quite good at what he does focus on. In short, it is likely he would be an even better asset to Wikipedia with the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
4. It's a cliche, but I really thought he was an admin. I have a passing interest in the NBA, so I've run into him occasionally and I've always been impressed by his level headedness, understanding of policies and guidelines, and all-round common sense. Added to that are his many years of service, contributions to recognised content, and focus on article space, all of which are big positives in my book. Jenks24 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Reading through Secret's nomination statement made me go from "zOMG he's not one already?! O_O", to "this guy is the perfect candidate for the role!" Glad to support. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 03:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Wow. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Look good --Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
8. →Bmusician 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

   Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   Because Zagalejo is a great editor who can be trusted with the tools; xe has my full support. →Bmusician 05:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

9. Support Trustworthy? I think so. Steven Walling • talk 04:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Seems trustworthy and capable of helping and enhancing the project in unique ways. Michael (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - looks good to me. Deb (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
12. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I agree with Dennis Brown's comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. Can be trusted with tools. I see no big problems here. BusterD (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
14. Support per Dennis Brown. Specs112 t c 14:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Looking at his contribs, he looks great. No reason not to support. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
16. Support A lot of edits updating articles, doing the steady work (c.f. Irving Howe). An editor with good character and manners. We need 1000 more editor-administrators like him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. With a good steady contribution history, over 80% of which is to article space, and no recent spikes in preparation for this RfA, there doesn't seem to be anything not to like. Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
18. Should make an effective, trustworthy administrator. AGK [•] 16:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
19. Definitely. - filelakeshoe 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    Do we have to all write co-nom statements on every support vote now? Because I think the editor can be trusted and his reasons for wanting the tools are good, in fact it's a perfect case of "experienced editor, give him the tools to make his life easier". Sports biographies always need admins watching them ready to protect. - filelakeshoe 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    Nope, but an indication of rationale is helpful, so thank you for your answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

20. Support We have several pages on our watchlists in common, most notably Kobe Bryant and WT:CHICAGO. We cross paths often and he is quite helpful in making WP a better place.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
21. Support The example in the nomination where Zagalejo addressed Forbes' criticism of WP (i.e. link #9) recalled his addressing criticism from Yahoo! News regarding another BLP. I have no doubt he will continue to look out for WP's best interest as an admin. I've also found that he/she is the rare editor who integrates the best parts of others' sometimes questionable edits—sometimes even adding his own citations—when most editors would simply do a full revert.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Has been pretty level headed in my interactions with him. Can always use more like him. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Zagalejo has helped me on a few articles in the past and I think he'd make a great admin. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
24. Support; Strong — awe-inspiring contributor, no of issues. ⇒TAP 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Looks to be active in all the right areas. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
26. Support - Nice content work (FA, DYK), seems trustworthy. I appreciate their willingness to attempt to salvage stray edits when possible, versus reverting any and everything out-of-hand. Good answers to 7,8 and 9. An experienced and active editor, with a good sense of policy, without being slavish to it. I see no reason to worry about mop privs for this candidate. ~ GabeMc (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
27. Support after a review of random contributions and a selection of AfD participations. With respect to AfD I saw a fine balance between policy knowledge, willingness to engage in the process of finding sources, and clue. I did have a twitch around the WP:PP issue raised in the oppose column, but have concluded (barring further evidence) that I was reflexively jumping on what was very likely an imprecise wording. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Trustworthy and lots of edits! A great candidate. —HueSatLum 21:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
29. Support Besides Zagalejo being a good admin candidate per above, we definitely need an admin who specializes in basketball-related articles.—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. Good contributions. Appropriate RFPP requests. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. It makes a welcome change to see a nomination for someone who is clearly here to help build this encyclopedia rather than to heckle from the gallery about others' efforts to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
32. Support - good to see a candidate for adminship that I can support with few or no reservations.VolunteerMarek 23:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
33. Support It would be great to have an admin that focuses on sports. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
34. Support although I would suggest that the user be careful in AFD discussions (should s/he begin closing them). Some votes do not look entirely based on policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    That was back in March 2008, four years ago in a time in which many editors AFD standards were totally different. Secret ^account 05:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

35. Support Excellent contribution to the project, and great experience.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Per nom, Bagumba, and others above. I would also advise the candidate to pay attention to the concerns expressed by Crisco 1492 above. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Looks good, mate! Rotorcowboy ^talk
    _contribs 04:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - 7 years in the harness, 61K edits, clean block log, no indications of assholery. This should be automatic, as in, yes, really, it should be AUTOMATIC. I liked the IAR answer. Carrite (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Zagalejo's reasons for wanting the tools are sound, and their sensible answers to the questions reflect their experience (which includes an obvious appreciation of the 'grey areas' admins need to address from time to time). Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
40. Support without question - great contributor to the project. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 10:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. The answers to the questions are concise and to-the-point, and they also demonstrate that the candidate has a mature attitude and is a great asset to Wikipedia. I think they would make a good admin. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - I loved the answers to questions 7 & 8; that combined with what I've seen of him means I'll gladly support. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
43. Support--v/r - TP 13:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Because Jupiter aligned with Venus in the 3rd quadrant.--v/r - TP 13:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Lovely rationale, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

44. Support Has been around since 2005, track is good with over 61k edits and over 700 articles created and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
45. Support - A very experianced and helpful user, a class act all around. Gran² 15:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
46. Support — No concerns now that I've seen his answers to Q7 Q8 & Q9. He seems to have a lot of experience and he understands consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. I have mild reservations about his sports focus and his answer to Q6 (my question). Unlike some, I don't think admins have to be knowledgeable in all areas, but to stick to just one area of Wikipedia seems a bit over-specialized. That said, I looked at administrative forums, and although he hasn't been there a lot, he handles himself, as he's done here, almost beautifully. His ability to express himself in an effective, deft, low-key manner is impressive. He says he's gotten "snippy" at times. I'd love to see some examples as I suspect his idea of "snippy" is different from mine. His answers to other questions have been great, a mixture of honesty, intelligence, understanding of the rules, and yet common sense. Besides, I want to be on record as having supported him so I can go to him with sports issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
48. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Per nom. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

49. Support Yup. -Scottywong| converse _ 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
50. Support - King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
51. Qualified candidate. Courcelles 20:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
52. Support. Candidate is qualified and trustworthy. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    Support - Good answers to 7,8 and 9. An experienced and active editor, with a good sense of policy, without being slavish to it. I see no reason to worry about mop privs for this candidate. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Moved/added second rationale to first support. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    You've already supported (see #26). WJBscribe (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    What, you mean I can only !vote once? JK, sorry, I thought this candidate seemed familiar. Good eye WJBscribe! ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

53. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 23:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
54. Support I find Zagalejo's replies refreshing and honest; they hold a depth of knowledge and understanding of how Wikipedia works that is far removed from what I often find in RfAs (namely - read question, consult policy page, rote but acceptable reply). It takes a wide breadth of knowledge and interests to build a strong group of admins that can support our varied community and it appears to me that Zagalejo would be a great addition to the mopping crew.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
55. Support A good and interesting candidate that shows without looking too much the benefits they will bring to the 'pedia. Congrats. —Hahc21 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
56. Support - seems trustworthy, good answers to questions, no red flags that I saw. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
57. Support - likely to be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
58. Support. Experienced editor with strong answers to the (sometimes difficult) questions. To put it better: per Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
59. T. Canens (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    My 8-ball told me to. T. Canens (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

60. Support - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
61. —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
62. Support I like his position in this discussion, as it seems constructive in a sensible, common-sense way. Warden (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
63. Support. Good contributions. Seems sensible. No concerns. --Michig (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
64. Yes. Valued contributor. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. An experienced editor with a good attitude. Ubelowme (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
66. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
67. Support Why not? Seems trustworthy. Good luck!--Chip123456 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Ditto to ^ Ian159 17:30 28 June 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
69. Support Honesty wins it for me. Good luck, --RA (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
70. Support with others.Érico ^msg 23:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
71. Support. Solid content editor who won't break the wiki. Look forward to working with you as one of our go-to administrators for NBA and CBB bios. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
72. Support Good candidate, well-rounded. Spencer^T♦C 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
73. Support. Long overdue. -- œ^™ 07:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
74. Support - seems like a good egg and can be trusted with the mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
75. Support I share GimliDotNet's concern, but this is offset by a review of your quality contributions, and your sound reasoning per the AfD diffs from the Colonel and Crisco 1492. So defaulting to support. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
76. Support This user could handle the tools properly because he already knows the responsibilities of being an administrator. Good luck! Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 12:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
77. Support. Clearly trustworthy; good, thorough answers to questions. Why not? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
78. Your judgement appears to be sound. And I really liked your reply to question 7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
79. Support Good answers, especially dealing with the potential problem of protecting articles where xhe is one of the few editors of the article. Minor misstep on the "anyone can edit issue, but I read the response as accepting anyone CAN edit while noting this does not imply everyone SHOULD edit. --Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 13:07, 29 June 2012‎
80. Support - While I do have a little concern, I believe the benefit outweigh those potential concerns. KTC (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
81. Support – From my experiences with Zag, he's been one of the most steadfast editors of keeping basketball players' biographies from becoming trainwrecks due to vandalism. There have been a couple of times where he's come across as snippy, but I'm not one to talk because I know I have zero patience for the aforementioned "people who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia." I trust that he would use the tools well. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
82. Support -- would be a perfect admin at 1/10th the edit count. We need more subject-expert/interest admins. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
83. Support. Lots of the right experience, and I like the honest answers to questions - including Q7, which is simply reflecting the facts of the real world. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
84. Support because we need more admins familiar with the way the project works and willing to pull the trigger when it's necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
85. Support per Michael Scott Cuthbert. Also, I respect the honesty shone in the answer to Q7. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
86. Support Rzuwig^► 23:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
87. Support I've not seen any persuasive reason to oppose (and thank goodness for that answer to q7. Yes. Indeed. And WP:SPADE.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
88. Support Opposes below (Even though there are just a few) are unconvincing. I think this editor would do a nice job as an administrator. Minima© (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
89. Support Looks good. Refreshing candor. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
90. Support Level-headed, would be a good admin. Doc talk 07:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
91. Support qualified and clever. Cavarrone (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
92. Support like the answers. wiki needs to rethink how it does business. PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
93. Support. Experience with content writing as evidenced by dyk contributions. I like the response about wanting to use sysop tools in a very specific area where you have some degree of expertise. I know you may move on to others areas in the future, but your candor is pleasing. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
94. Support. A well-rounded candidate whose interest in basketball well supports the intended use of the tools, and I don't see any red flags. The answers to questions make me confident that the candidate has plenty of clue, and has high standards. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
95. Support. A versatile editor and active contribs. V838 Monøceroti§^R☉☼ 14:47, 1 Julu 2012 (UTC)
96. Support per Dennis Brown and answers to questions. It's my position that more Admins are a good thing, even if they will not try to be everywhere at all times. Focus is not a bad thing and though I agree that most Admins end up helping in ways they never imagined, I appreciate the candor and focus that this candidate brings. Vertium (talk to me) 14:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
97. Support I have no reason to think they'll misuse the mop. As a proud member of Category:Cynical Wikipedians, I think cynicism is healthy in administrators. One should assume good faith, but that doesn't mean that you are blind to the fact that people may in fact be acting in bad faith. When we say that "anyone can edit", we're saying basically the same as "anyone can come to our nightclub"—there's no barrier on some arbitrary matter like race or sex or age. But that doesn't mean if someone behaves problematically, we can't boot them out of our nightclub/encyclopedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
98. Support Willingness to investigate before pulling the trigger in possible 3rr situations is much needed. Also like answer to 7 as AGF is not a suicide pact. Actually this is one of those "I thought they already were an admin" based on their good work. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
99. Support You definitely have what it takes to be a good administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
100. Support as per his answers to Qs. :) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

     Support Great to see over 100 users supporting this. Anyway, solid contributions, and good answers to the questions. Minima© (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Whoops! I accidentally double-voted. Minima© (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

101. Support - No doubt about the editor's abilities after looking at the answers to the questions. Looks good to me →TSU ^tp* 10:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
102. I don't recall coming across this editor before, but it was a pleasant surprise to review them. Civil, clueful and experienced, just a shame they didn't run for admin after 6,100 edits rather than 61,000. ϢereSpielChequers 11:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
103. Support Honest and straight up. The oppose votes are ridiculous.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
104. Support (edit conflict)Lets call him extraordinarily naἵve. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
105. Support no real problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
106. Support – An experienced editor who appears generally sensible. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
107. Support Zagalejo is a long term trusted user who has great intentions on expanding and improving Wikipedia. Good and correct answers to almost all of the questions above. They have most of the necessary experience typically required for a starting Administrator and they are surely going to help and serve the project using administrative tools quite well. All the best Zagalejo! TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
108. Support Meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
109. Support No reason to believe candidate will misuse tools or position.--MONGO 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
110. Support - Never had contact with him, but I can believe that he won't misuse the tools. ZappaOMati 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - User states that the use of the tools would be to preemptively protect articles that s/he believes might be subject to vandalism. Protection is a necessary evil in some cases, but we need to remember that necessary evils just become evils when they're unnecessary. Add on to that the fact that IP editing of pages (again, unless there is cause to limit that) is a Foundational Issue, and I simply cannot support. Achowat (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Moving to Neutral Achowat (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation when the editor said "certain sports biographies" it would be biographies that he sees being edited inappropriately. Note one that he thinks might be, but I'd like to see his comment on this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I will welcome and consider any comments of clarification the candidate has in regards to this. Achowat (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see how you might interpret my comment that way, but I won't be semiprotecting articles until I've already seen a pattern of problematic edits. If no one's editing an article, I'll leave it alone. I won't deny that I'm cynical about the "anyone can edit" philosophy, but I'll respect the rules that we have in place. If I do anything too radical, I'm just going to invite drama, and I don't want that. Zagalejo^^^ 21:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that the candidate in Q1 response referred to "inexperienced editors", not specifically to IP editors. Q1 response also states "I'd be willing to semiprotect articles if I observe more general BLP violations, or other serious forms of disruption."—Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose - Wikipedia is neutral. Admin's should not pick and choose what opinions users are allowed to hold. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   Can you please point to where this it was said otherwise?--v/r - TP 17:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   Erm, on this page. Have you read his answers to the questions? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   I was going to ask the same question as TParis. Maybe I'm just being thick, but I can't see any answer that suggests that Zagalejo would pick and choose what opinions users are allowed to hold. Could you please be more specific about which answer(s) you find troublesome? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   Frankly, there are a lot of people on the Internet who shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. Cranks, racists, horrible writers, extreme nationalists, etc. "Anyone can edit" is a nice slogan, but you have to be realistic, too. With what I've seen over the years, I think I've earned the right to be a little cynical. - this for starters. One man's racist is another's realist, as for the comment on horrible writers that's just elitism. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   Spend some time at AE or editing Indian caste articles, then come back to me and tell me we need more nationalist edit warriors barely capable of stringing English sentences together. Pragmatism has its place even in a place like this, which can be extraordinarily dogmatic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   Frankly, I thought Zagalejo's comments in this area to be refreshingly honest and certainly not racist or elitist. That said, I'm glad that at least you explained your !vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   I'm glad you feel that way, but as someone who's writing skills are not great, I try to help out by anti-vandalism stuff and little edits, under his regime I wouldn't be allowed to edit. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   I don't mean to imply that everyone who contributes must have perfect English. I only ask that people try their best, and understand their strengths and weaknesses. Zagalejo^^^ 21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Yeah, I get it now. I just didn't see where it came from. Now that I know, I am fine with the opinion. Thanks for explaining--v/r - TP 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   To put it into context, the response to Q8 says, "'Being bold' is a good way to get things moving with an article, but you should be respectful of other people's opinions. If people have reasonable arguments against your edits, then it's not fair to bull your way through and do what you want. We are a collaborative project, and intelligent people can have very different views on certain issues. One should always make an effort to discuss the issues." The candidate can clarify the somewhat conflicting points with his "cynical comment", but my interactions with Zagalejo have shown that good faith is always assumed.—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

   If people are trying to do the right thing, I will respect them and listen to them. Zagalejo^^^ 21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I cannot support a candidate who confesses to cynicism as this negates WP:AGF which is the basis of our social contract with our community. BO | Talk 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, god forbid an RfA candidate answers a question honestly. What was he thinking? -Scottywong| gab _ 15:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   Since AfDRfA as it stands now is a popularity poll − I realize that my opinion counts for little. I think that confirming this declaration of Cynicism is a badge of shame. I am certain this is not what the WMF had in mind when they placed editor loss at the top of their strategic priorities. Cynicism and requests for trout slapping.... What is Wikipedia coming to these days ? How can an admin be truseted maintain a Neutral PoV if he is confirmed at the mop with a Cynical attitude? While I too applaud transparency - I speak for the countless Non-admins users who do not enjoy dealing with cynical admins. I too agree that this candidate is trustworthy. It is because f this - not despite it that I suggest that this nomination be recalled until such a time that the candidate can relace cynicism with conviviality, since this is not a lessons that is learned at the mop. BO | Talk 19:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   When you say "AfD...is a popularity poll" do you mean to say RFA? 86.150.68.109 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for the pointing out the wrong acronym BO | Talk 21:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   One can be cynical and convivial. I don't go out of my way to be a jerk to people. I'm just realistic about the problems Wikipedia faces. I've already devoted thousands of hours of unpaid labor to this project, so, clearly, I don't think Wikipedia is hopeless. I just want people to think critically about certain issues. Zagalejo^^^ 19:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, one can assume and uphold good faith and still realize that competence is required.—Bagumba (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   In many instances RfA is indeed a popularity/unpopularity poll, but in this instance, if you take away the fan votes, you'll still probably find a very healthy majority of serious ones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   We need pessimists. [11]. Marcus Qwertyus 08:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   I find this oppose and the oppose below highly ridiculous. I guess people shouldn't be honest these days for their own sake. And yes Marcus, we do need more pessimists.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose I don't approve the belittling of an oppose rationale. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose I am pleased with his work, but am greatly concerned that he disagrees with "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is a central aspect of Wikipedia, and I don't agree that good-faith editors should be rejected because they are "horrible writers" or have extremist opinions. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

   Read my comment above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

   Admins should be more accountable to the fundamental tenants of wiki, not bitter and grizzled. Although this has turned into a ridiculous popularity content, looks like consensus is going to change the basics. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   Sometimes, someone has to pull the trigger; that's why AE, AIV, and UAA (demonstrative, not exhaustive) exist. It's never fun to do, but I've had to topic ban many editors because that's what the situation calls for. If you really want, I can give specific examples, but the short of it is that sometimes, an admin will have to decide that enough is enough and act on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   The users comments do not reassure me that his 'not everyone can edit' attitude will be a point of last resort. Seems presumptive GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Moved from Oppose - User did well resolving my qualms with his opinions on protection, but being "cynical" about Everyone editing is too much for me to fully support. Achowat (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
2. There's a lot of positive here. And I like that the candidate answers from a perspective of having lived the Wikipedia experience rather than just having read about it (if that makes any sense). But I just feel a sense of "heavy-handed-ness" (both against others and to promote their personal perspective) that if my feeling come to fruition, is not something we would want in an admin. Example from question 10, which, ironically, was asking how he'd determine if he was WP:INVOLVED:"Thus, I would be willing to semiprotect articles if it seems that too many users simply don't understand the facts, or are too willing to report rumors as truth. But also understand this: I don't want the article to stagnate or go out of date. When a transaction is being rumored, I'm obsessively checking the team websites and other sources, waiting to see if there is an announcement. The semiprotection shouldn't be seen as a punishment, but rather as an attempt to bring order out of chaos." However, as I don't recall ever personally interacting with the candidate, and those above who have, have un-equivically supported, I'll not oppose on these grounds but instead just sit over here. I wish the candidate well. - jc37 00:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   For the record, I have slightly reworded that section above. I don't think it would change your mind either way; it was mainly to clarify my position for other readers. Zagalejo^^^ 02:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   Nod, I've been watching your edits with interest. I wasn't kidding when I said I sincerely was looking to support.

   And I wouldn't oppose just on a technicality or some such. The example I quoted was just the more egregious appearing. In spending a fair amount of time going through your contribs, seeing all the "warn" edit summaries inclined me to start going through every edit to an IP talk page or in response in edit summaries or on talk pages to IP edits. At times you come off neutrally collaborative) especially if the IP hadn't done anything warning-able for except to edit a page that didn't quite match your expectations. (My apologies for characterising it that way - there's obviously a difference between how something can "appear" and how things are intended.) But I started to notice a seeming trend that new editors got welcome messages from you and helpful comments. and IPs got warned. And your response to my question about your "cynical" comment just compounded things for me.

   The problem with citing that though, is it isn't "definitive". There could be fair logical reasons for it. let's say you feel that welcomes or other types of friendliness should only go to editors with accounts, etc. An editor is welcome to that opinion, even if I slightly disagree. So again, nothing to really strongly oppose for, just a "sense" and some "concerns".

   So I asked a few more questions to try to help me discern. (Plus the concerns others had pointed out about protection, that I wanted to follow up on.)

   And at first glance I thought I was reading essentially: I'll use protect as a way to control editing of a particular page to be in a way that I prefer. - I re-read it quite a few times, and softened my reading of it some, as I thought it could mean an attempt to try to control disruption and "maybe" not so much to your "preferred version". (If I may suggest: the choice of the phrase "...an attempt to bring order out of chaos" - may not have been the best choice - it really affected how I initially read your response.) But with everything else, it just built upon my concerns.

   (There's more, but they're isolated lesser examples, and to be honest, I think posting a nuanced study of a cross section of your edit history just isn't fair, especially in an RfA.)

   Oh and please don't forget what I said at the start, there's a lot of good here. Please don't let these individual concerns unbalance the good you have done and continue to do.

   And please, don't feel as you have to respond to any of this.

   Oh and it's likely "small" consolation (pardon the pun) - but people looking to oppose me if I ever go for RfB again, will have another example to cite where I didn't "vote with the pack". (Though I personally think not mindlessly jumping on a bandwagon is a good thing, but to each their own.

   As I said above, I do sincerely wish you well. - jc37 03:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   To address one point: I don't typically give IPs welcome messages because that same person might be editing under a different IP the next time they come to visit Wikipedia. There's a good chance they never even see what I've written. Of course, that person might never see a warning, either. But if the user is causing problems, you need to at least try something. Zagalejo^^^ 04:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

   Then by that argument, edits like this would also be a waste of time.

   As I mentioned above, this is more a "sense", and a building concern, and it is mostly built on circumstantial evidence, and relies on things we may never know for certain. But these concerns are enough to leave me hesitant to support at this time. - jc37 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral I cannot support him even if he answered my question frankly. TruPepitoM (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's going to make much difference, but would you care to explain what it was about his "frank response" that you don't like? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2012 (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.