Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bastique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


[edit] Bastique

Final (85/11/6) ended 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bastique (talk • contribs) – Bastique has 5,937 edits, well spread across the namespaces. When I first encountered him on IRC, my first thought of course was "He already is one!" (Cliche, I know), but I found that not to be the case. Bastique does disambiguation, reverting of vandalism, and general editing (Hey, we are building an encyclopedia, aren’t we :-)). Bastique has shown throughout his months at Wikipedia, that he is a trusted individual. He often asks my assistance in dealing with administrative matters. He is a sysop on commons and handles OTRS mail for the Foundation, and I feel he is a trusted editor that can make great use of the tools here on en-wiki. --lightdarkness (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do love Wikipedia, I wish I could be here always...I accept this nomination. (User Bastique waves to all the people who came to see him...hat...brooch...crowd) Bastiqueparlervoir 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator :-) --lightdarkness (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Grr I wanted to nominate you support Jaranda wat's sup 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Super-duper cliche (everybody should know what goes here) Support Werdna648T/C\@ 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. supportßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Seems to be a good choice.--MONGO 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Responsable editor, should make good use of the tools. --W.marsh 02:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support! Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Can be counted on to get things done (heck, is always underfoot asking what needs doing ;-)); I trust him to use the tools well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support time for another user to get the mop, bucket and keys. --Primate#101 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, doesn't know the difference between "presently" and "currently". Oh, it's not April Fool's?? Nuts. Okay, Strong support. RadioKirk talk to me 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Rama's Arrow 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, knows how to use the tools already and is definitely trustworthy. --Shanel § 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Tréan tacaíocht Extremely helpful Irish Wikipedian, I'm dumbfounded that he wasn't already. Snoutwood (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support - seems very responsible. Metamagician3000 04:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC) changing to neutral. Metamagician3000 04:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. A valuable contributor with good sense, in my opinion. -Will Beback 04:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Yesh, very good. Per nomination and all those above me and whatnot.--Sean Black (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Terence Ong 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per all above -- Tawker 05:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per above. DarthVader 07:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. I thought s/he already WAS one... (Is that supposed to be substed?) --Rory096 07:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. I thought s/he already WAS one... probably Rory. Computerjoe's talk 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, I was swayed by the candid commentary on past civility issues. And also {{subst:Rfa cliche1}} -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, with bells on -- sannse (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, with bells and whistles on -- Brisvegas 09:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Colourful aluminium support - but please be nicer to UK users. --Doc ask? 10:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. The Funny Man Support and 'cause he's one hell of a nice guy. --Andy123(talk) 10:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support: good editor, thought he already was one. Jonathunder 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Mackensen (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Palmiro | Talk 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support A dedicated user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - already an admin on Commons (and he hasn't torched the place!), answers emails for the Foundation (and we haven't been sued!), so I don't think he's going to abuse the tools. Alphax τεχ 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. "Adminship is no big deal.". - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support good user. --Tone 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. I see no reason to doubt this user's competence or good faith. I see no reason this user shouldn't be made an administrator. Rob Church (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, Bastique is a very good editor who follows policy and assumes good faith. The diffs posted below do not overly concern me, I have seen a lot worse language used on talk pages about contentious articles. Rje 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    You've seen worse language than this [1] used by an admin without censure? Can you give some examples? Badgerpatrol 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    For bad language just go through WP:ANI some time. There's not too much wrong with what Bastique said to Alienus. This is not Requests for Martyrdom, we wouldn't have any admins if people were discounted for making the odd terse comment to problem users like Alienus. Rje 19:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support per Mindspillage et. al. Complete confidence in him. Shimgray | talk | 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. I've had the pleasure of getting to know him on en:, commons, and in IRC. Great guy, very neutral and level-headed. He knows what he's doing and we could use his experience. I don't think it's a good idea to bring crumbling skeletons out of the closet or deny him status soley for saying "piss". (OMG!!)--Orgullomoore 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, will make a good admin. Royboycrashfan 20:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, I met Bastique on IRC as well. He has been helpful to me any time I've asked a question. The diffs provided below may be curt, but to me they are not indicative of someone who is lacking in responsibility or is vindictive. I think he'd make good use of the admin tools. -Dawson 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support.  Grue  21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, I believe Bastique can be a good admin. --Prevert(talk) 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, Bastique is a good admin on Commons and I don't see en.wp would be any different. Thryduulf 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support excellent and trusted multi-project contributor. Experienced as an admin, especially regarding images/copyright issues. - Amgine 21:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. cautious, WP:AGF SUPPORT Here are the dif's on the Suzen Johnson article. I can understand how the article might have caused some concern on the part of the subject. Concerns that were possibly addressed at OTRS by the subject. I see nothing on the discussion page, and a somewhat peremptory note in comments. Having seen the article as it stands today-- and it's a candidate for deletion-- I can see how it might be viewed as troubling by some. Having said all that, and understanding that as an OTRS user, for the Foundation, he may be seeing feedback that the rest of us are insulated from, I'm going to ask this user to please be a little more communicative as an admin so that he is less likely to appear peremptory or as a POV pusher. :) Dlohcierekim
    Thanks for all the suggestions. I definitely am open to criticism, and I'm learning a lot from this experience. Even the opposed users are providing me with important insight as to how I should handle things. Bastique 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Happy to support you. I hope that my earlier comment does not come across as being as brusque and condescending as it reads to me know. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Suppport, patient and helping to new users, who tend to need the most guidance. Has not abused the tools at Commons, good admin there. pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support per his answers on my questions abakharev 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. I've seen nothing but good-humored and well-intentioned edits with the oppose evidence and most of it a year or so old, geesh. Bastique will be an excellent admin as evidenced by his overall editing and demeanor. hydnjo talk 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support per the reasoning that we do need more admins... seriously though I have no problem with him having the mop and bucket. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support a great, friendy editor —Mets501talk 02:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. support mets said exactly what i was going to say benon 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support and good luck. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support - after his frank replies etc., I'd feel churlish not supporting. I think he'll do the right thing, despite the glitches in the past. Metamagician3000 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Elf-friend 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. --Bhadani 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Sure. DS 16:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. I´ve seen Bastique around, always good contribs from him. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support -- QuakeRanger 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
  59. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Almost missed this, Bastique - would have been my error if I had of course. Please tell me this won't mean you'll stop making your lovely maps?
  60. Neutral. Changing to cautious support, as he is discussing, and per Dlohcierekim. I have only encountered Bastique yesterday, when he reverted away a fair bit of my editing on Suzen Johnson, explaining that he had gotten complaints about the article on m:OTRS. However, he didn't explain what exactly the issue he objected to was, just that it was "brutal". That left me in a bit of a quandary as to what exactly I needed to do to satisfy his objections, since I'm pretty sure article version he reverted away met WP standards of verifiability and NPOV. The general behaviour ("You did something I don't like, but I'm too busy to explain exactly what") is something I really don't want in an admin. That said, he was very civil, polite, and respectful, about what he did write, and has promised to help in more detail in the future, so this is why this is merely a neutral and not an oppose - at least he was nice about it. If he does actually work on the article constructively, I'll remove the objection. It had better be the near future, though, since the article is up for deletion in a close vote. AnonEMouse 21:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support: seems like a nice bloke. --Jay(Reply) 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  63. You're not an admin??? Support For obvious reasons -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 07:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support —Whouk (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support - This is the first nom I've been able to support in weeks. Bastique has the human qualities that make a great administrator: won't let it go to his head, questions the absolutes created by the system and by himself. His ability to grow from past mistakes is a positive thing. --Dragon's Blood 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    (Zephram Stark)
  65. Support .... and he's a nice bloke. FreplySpang (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, thought he/she was one. — May. 13, '06 [06:01] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  67. RfA Cliché support Will (E@) T 08:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  68. Strong support per cliché. --Celestianpower háblame 10:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Joe I 13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  70. Guettarda 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support, will make a fine admin. Angr (t • c) 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support, with provisions, assuming that this was an aberration and an example of someone just being human. - WarriorScribe 23:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support I go away for two weeks and look who's running! I Can't Believe He Wasn't Already One...etc etc etc... Full throttle support, Daytona Stylee! Hamster Sandwich 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. Pepsidrinka 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  76. Reserved Support in light of the below. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  77. absolute support -- Danny 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  78. Weak support; weak only because of the below stuff. Mopper Speak! 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  79. What the hell do you mean he's not an admin vote! Sasquatch t|c 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support of course!! Mike (T C) 02:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. A little bothered by his/her lack of diplomacy in a few disputes, but, looking at the overall picture, I feel the good outweighs the bad. Unlike Ardenn, I think we need as many decent admins as we can get. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support; one or two minor slips in civility are more than forgivable when balanced out with a few thousand edits of excellent work. - that's right, I'm starting a revolution and assessing a potential admin based on the 99.9 percent of their activity, not the 0.1 percent. Proto||type 08:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  83. Vandal pwning support go go gadget mop ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support - I love that "B". Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support - strong vandalfighter, both here and on Commons, and very active on OTRS. - jredmond 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose, per the diffs ([[2], [3], [4])and explanation in my comment below and ESPECIALLY this diff [5] from less than a month ago. That is not the kind of behaviour that I associate with an admin. He may be a decent contributor to the project, but he is definitely NOT responsible enough to be entrusted with admin powers. Badgerpatrol 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm very sad that you feel this way. The edits from Yoghurt (and Gasoline, where I was much better) were from nearly a year ago and were well inside of my first 1,000 edits. I've pointed below that it was me acting at my worse, plus I've learned a lot since then, and I certainly no longer engage in flame wars. The comment on Terry Goodkind's page was retracted immediately and with an apology to Alianus. Bastique 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I believe his user name is in fact 'Alienus' ;-) Badgerpatrol 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Regarding the 'Alienus' edit, I believe that one should consider [6], which was posted not long thereafter. It might not matter to Badgerpatrol that I apologized very soon after the prior post, but it may make a difference to others. Bastique 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Ardenn 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Could you give a reason why you're opposing the RFA candidate? --Terence Ong 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Based on the RfAs below, it seems that Ardenn feels that Wikipedia "don't [sic] need more admins"--☆TBC☆ 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    According to my/his talk pages, it's because he feels that too many admins abuse their power. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I read all the discussion concerning the petrol/gasoline controversy. The candidate did not come off very well. We don't need more (or, any) administrators like that. Civility is the prime characteristic of an effective administrator. Ted 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose "I'm sometimes short with other editors" - this user is valuable but seems like he has a shortish temper, and has known to be uncivil on occasions. --Knucmo2 08:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose as per Badgerpatrol. The candidate made this remark on April 18, 2006: Some editors have nothing better to do than perform character assassinations and work hard to try and piss off the subjects of their articles. Don't you have anything positive to say about anyone, Alianus? I appreciate that it was indeed withdrawn: Alienus, while I won't delete this comment as it has already been 'seen', I do respectfully ask that you disregard it. It was written in some frustration and I apologize for any assumptions made. However, we need admins whose initial reaction to frustration is to moderate the debate. It shows that Bastique is self-aware and knows his weaknesses, but has not yet resolved them. I am sure he will, and at that time he will make a good admin. Tyrenius 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Trust issues. --Masssiveego 05:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I guess he will be one. He is not diplomatic. Wallie 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Tyrenius, This vote may not mean much, but diplomacy is very important. (I myself have had problems with admins who forgot diplomacy), and I consider myself very civil, come check my talkpage:-)Eagle talk 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per BadgerPatrol. Cynical 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per BadgerPatrol as well. As much as I'd love to, I can't really overlook that in this case. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose due to the note about the comment made by Bastique. Also, it would be preferable if this user used more edit summaries. (77% for major, 55% for minor)—G.He 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral tending to oppose. His remarks on WarriorScribe's talk page don't seem very nice. No reason to oppose over just one dialogue though. Kimchi.sg 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I had given up on that entire conversation—didn't even realize he had responded to my last comment. See below about what we do sometimes in the heat of the moment. It was a no-win situation. Bastiqueparlervoir
    Neutral at present. I note your comments below, and I had a quick look at the (voluminous!) discussion on yoghurt and Gasoline. I'm a bit concerned by statements like 'We are now watching you guys.'[7] and edits like this [8], and this [9]. It would be is an issue for me if that this (very) combative style of argument which is evident on those older talk pages is a feature of your more recent contributions- holding one's temper in check and being prepared to discuss issues rationally and reasonably is surely a VERY important skill for an admin. Apologies after the fact do not obscure a short temper in the first instance. However, I note your other good works for the project and I'm not inclined to vote 'Oppose' at the moment. Badgerpatrol 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral - great user, but I'm concerned about his/her tone in various debates referenced above, and it doesn't look like just a one-off getting upset when someone can be talking about "UK trolls" and so on. It looks like quite aggressive and consistent POV pushing. I don't want to vote against someone who seems so good in other ways, so I'll park myself in this neutral space. I hope the user will address this issue. Metamagician3000 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    The comment about "UK trolls" was actually not meant to be what it was... and I will regret that remark until the end of days here at Wikipedia. Last June, Yoghurt and Gasoline pretty much quenched my taste for flame wars here. I've had a substantial number of edits since then. I'm certainly not a POV pusher. With m:OTRS, I've had to defend some fairly indefensable positions lately, often coming in to "owned" articles after this or that person complains. Our editors don't realize that quite often, their subject matter actually sees what's being written about them. Bastique 05:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for that comment, especially so promptly - probably not enough to shift my vote back to support this time, but enough to make me more comfortable about not opposing. Metamagician3000 06:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    What the hey, looking at the exchanges here and what he said to me on my userpage, I think he's learned his lesson. I'll support afterall. Metamagician3000 10:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for the reasons listed above. Lots of great work so far, but not necessary to make a new admin that may get a bit hot under the collar.--Eva db 13:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Without these controversies, I would support.--Jusjih 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Looking through the contributions I was pretty impressed. The Petrol/Yoghurt business is in the past, but the exchange with User:WarriorScribe was not conducted well and seemed to escalate needlessly. Being an Admin is only going to provide more situations where a calm head is needed. Leithp 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. The edits this user made (shown in the oppose section) are a little disturbing, but I can't oppose.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I've seen Bastique around and have generally liked his work; I am surprised that he is not an admin. However, the diffs brought up by Kimchi and Badgerpatrol give me some concerns about his civility that I wasn't aware of before. It looks like this RfA will pass; but if it doesn't for whatever reason, then if Bastique improves his interactions with other users then I'd be willing to support a future request for adminship. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Let me say, primarily, I'm going to be assisting in maintenance, deleting; researching and removing or reinstating blocks; holding people's hands and helping them get out of blocked user status when they feel they've been unjustly blocked...really helping people become valuable contributors.
I'm presently a sysop at Commons, and I help answer correspondence at OTRS.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've contributed to a great number of articles at Wikipedia. Florida city, town articles, maps, infoboxes, Irish towns, infoboxes. My first article was fixed base operator back in 2004, and it's still the same today. I've created various articles on airports (Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport), and I've contribured a great amount to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I started Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ireland and have helped out a great deal with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Florida. Overall, I have nearly 6,000 contributions to Wikipedia, and nearly 3,000 to Commons--and have worked on such a great variety of articles. It's hard to pick out what I like best!
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: Indeed! Hasn't everyone had some level of Wikistress or another. Early on I got involved at some heated debates on UK versus US English (see yoghurt if you want me at my worst)--I'm not proud of the way I allowed myself to get wrapped up in the battles. I'm sometimes short with other editors, but even then, sometimes after an apology on my part, I develop amicable relationships afterwards.

Question from abakharev (As always, all additional questions are completely optional)

1 A hypopethetical situation. You a getting an E-mail from a user asking to unblock him. The user claims to have no idea why he was blocked. It is the final days of his ArbCom case and he is understandably frustrated. There are no warnings or block messages on his talk page, and on the block log there are only general words like: For disruptive behavior. Attempts to contact the blocking admin fail. Your actions?
A (Note, this depends on whether the email was sent to me privately or whether I read it on OTRS) First, I look at the ArbCom case to determine if the rationale is there. Secondly look at that user's recent contributions, then the admin's contributions shortly before the blocking. If I cannot determine on Wikipedia the rational, and whether the user was warned prior to the blocking, as is policy per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption. User warnings are placed on user talk page. If no warnings or rational exists, I notify the blocking admin about the questionable block. Since it directly reverses a prior sysop's decision, I would probably enlist another administrator to unblock him/her. Multiple eyes are better than single ones, and we can afford to be careful.
2 You gave a user the Npa3 warning. In an hour you got a compaint that the user used words XXX and YYY that are a grave nationalistic slur in the language Z. You do not know the language Z and never heard words XXX and YYY before. Your actions?
A Not being familiar with the words in question, I would place a notice on Administrators' Noticeboard, explaining the harrassment used. We have an abundance of administrators here who are involved in blocking disruptive users, and I believe in leaving that to the more experienced admins in that area. I'm more concerned with image deletion, restoration, article deletion, history suppression and/or restoration.


The above 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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Bastique_b5d1.html"