Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Saxifrage

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

[edit] Saxifrage

Final (63/2/1) Ended Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:33:07 (UTC)

Saxifrage (talk • contribs) – I am fairly new to wikipedia, so I am not terribly familiar with the type of editor that typically is successful at passing the RfA, so I apologize in advance for the incompleteness of this description. Every encounter I have had with Saxifrage has been a disagreement. Yet, every time this has occured, I have learned something new about wikipedia editing, and every disagreement was handled professionally such that the prospects for an editing war were defused. Since that time, I have examined some of the work Saxifrage has done and found it to be of extremely high quality. Saxifrage has repeatedly demonstrated respect for the letter and spirit of the rules of wikipedia, and has executed a tremendous amount of positive edits. As someone who has had content disagreements with Saxifrage at nearly every turn, I can honestly say I would feel 100% confident with Saxifrage holding the mop. Nothing in his history suggests he would abuse the powers of adminship. PStrait 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I have to say that I'm touched that this nomination has come from someone who I've actively disagreed with from the very first. Even should this nomination not succeed, I'll come away pleased to know that I must be doing something right. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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: The times I have most wished to have the mop—if only for a moment—have been when I've begun cleaning up after a vandal only to find that their page is full of "last chance" warnings by non-administrators. Given admin tools, I expect I will be a scourge to vandals, though perhaps just a small scourge to the worst of them while I'm still getting my admin-legs.

I often find myself discovering new articles and either paring them down into an encyclopedic form or suggesting them for deletion, whether speedy, proposed, or nominated. In line with that interest I'd like to help deal with the ongoing backlog of candidates for speedy deletion. As I become more confident with the mop, I would add processing prod'd articles to my rounds and (after quite a bit more confidence gained) closing AfDs.

Though I am an active member of the Spam WikiProject, I don't expect to need or want to use admin tools in that capacity in the near term. I've found that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, persuasion is much preferable to risking biting newcomers. In the future I may help out with blocking the sockpuppets of banned spammers.

My areas of interest at Wikipedia tend to ebb and flow, so I expect that which other administrative duties I put energy into will follow the same pattern. I expect that I'll be popping up here and there as time goes on, helping where I can and discovering new things that I can be good at doing. For instance, in the past I have done RC patrol, so that's something that I might return to.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am a WikiGnome at heart, so my contributions tend to be small and spread out across many articles. (I particularly enjoy cleaning up unruly disambig pages so that they comply with the Manual of Style.) Of the few small articles I've actually created, my favourite is Burg Maus. It was particularly pleasing and challenging as writing it required translating material from German, both from the de:Burg Maus article and other sources I found for it. I learned a lot about the area and its history in the course of translating and polishing the article, and I think the result is neat and informative.

Other contributions that I have found particularly fulfilling have been formatting inline references that I chance across using the Cite.php markup and the citation templates. I wish I had a more impressive set of articles or contributions to show off here, but such are the trials of being a WikiGnome!

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: I have, and I've learned a lot from them. During my first few months here I don't think I handled conflict very well, I'm sorry to say, and on realising this I made a point of honing my diplomatic skills. I've come to believe that The World Will Not End Tomorrow is one of the best guides when things get tense. Though it specifically addresses determining notability, the spirit and name of the essay really apply to everything at Wikipedia. After all, it's the Wiki Way that if something really ought to be done, if I don't do it then someone else will. When I find that another user is causing me stress, the best remedy is to let that page or topic simmer for a while on its own while I go and do some non-contentious editing. When I come back, I'm inevitably more composed and better able to let the small things go. (Sometimes I even find that the point I wanted to make has been made by another editor by the time I get back.) No angry mastodons is another essay full of wisdom that's good to re-read occasionally.

One of the most important tools I've used for maintaining good faith and civility while at Wikipedia is the preview button. When I am dealing with a difficult situation, whether it's a tense discussion on a Talk page or dealing with a vandal or misguided link-adder, stopping to reconsider what I've written helps immensely for identifying ways in which my words are not well-chosen, could be misconstrued, or are simply just not going to help the situation at all. Just taking the time to choose my words well and to deliberate on how they might be read does wonders for my own peace of mind, and from experience, goes a long way to fostering civility and good faith in the person I'm interacting with.

In that same vein, I know that the tone of a message can make or break its effectiveness. The administrators I've been most impressed with are those who are cheerful and open even in the face of abuse and vitriol. In my work with the Spam WikiProject I've found emulating this approach has served me well on first contact with misguided link-adders.

Finally, but not least, is the simple skill of being able to admit fault. Accepting that I might be wrong is a powerful tool for dealing with conflict, because we're all fallible and we will inevitably make mistakes. Being able to back down from an untenable stand or to apologise for mistakes made goes a long, long way toward reaching a positive outcome in a conflict. Contrary to popular belief, being able to admit mistakes tends to be appreciated by others.

Question from Malber (talk • contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: WP:IAR is a corollary of What Wikipedia Is (a project to build an encyclopedia and nothing else). Rules have been put in place because they seem to help the project progress smoothly toward its goal, not because rules are inherently good to have. Rules are important (and some are very important) but they should never become or be used as a straightjacket that hinders the project from functioning as it should. IAR exists because the community knows even good rules have corner cases where slavishly adhering to their letter is detrimental to our goal. It is also a recognition that our rules are descriptive of how things work and what is and isn't tolerated, not prescriptive for how we must do things.

WP:SNOW is a specific application of IAR that encourages us to avoid red tape that is merely for the sake of red tape. Our processes have been put in place to keep things running smoothly. However, when an action is clearly in line with the spirit of the policies and goals of the project, going through the process may actually detract from the smooth running of the project. It's necessarily a judgement call, and should never be used to justify an action in the face of opposition. Both IAR and SNOW are recognitions that we're not robots—we can and should make use of our good sense to avoid getting bogged down in process.

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: No. Punishment would make it personal and that's not what we're here for. There are two kinds of blocks that are regularly applied (though they very often overlap): preventative and instructional. Preventative blocks are used to interrupt disruption of the project: they bring a halt to edit wars or objectionable conduct and give those involved "time out" that might result in more well-considered actions when they return. These are usually clear-cut cases. Instructional blocks are easily confused with punitive ones, but have a very different purpose. An editor who doesn't understand or accept our rules will sometimes insist on acting against them or claim that those opposed to their actions are wrong. An instructional block (nearly always very brief) can be a convincing sign they are clearly in the wrong and need to re-evaluate their understanding of what is required of them as participants in the project. In practice, instructional blocks are almost always also preventative blocks: such a block stops the objectionable activity and sends a clear message that it is objectionable. Circumstances where only an instructive block would be warranted are rare, and admins usually prefer to warn users instead when immediate prevention isn't called for.

6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?

A: I don't have unambiguous criteria so much as a set of heuristics for recognising article spam. (We've yet to teach a computer to recognise spam reliably, so I don't think being unable to come up with rules a computer could use is much of a failing.) It's also more of a continuum than a clear division. Some red flags of mine are: the article is a single-edit text-dump; the author's only edits are to the article and there are no substantial edits by others; it contains no discussion of the company; prominence is given to products or services; there is lots of inappropriate "keyword" cross-linking on other articles in a short time; it reads like a press release or business directory entry. None of these are conclusive on their own (and there are many more that I can't translate from brain to text), but they point to an article being advertising. Of course, the key word in CSD:G11 is blatant. When there is no shadow of doubt, when it is advertising and then some, speedying is warranted. Otherwise we have prod and AfD, not to mention the judgement of other admins who might chance across the same article. In the end, the CSD are just WP:SNOW codified for easy reference.

General comments

• See Saxifrage's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Saxifrage's editcount summary stats as of 08:03, October 28 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support Saxifrage has acted in a manner that made me assume when I first encountered him that he was an admin. I was quiet surprised to find that he wasn't. I support him wholeheartedly, without reservation. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I like everything I've seen so far. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support I thought they were an admin already - Trysha ^(talk) 07:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, impressive contributions and diplomacy.- gadfium 07:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Indeed. Also not afraid to ask questions when he's not sure, which is something we could use in more admins. – Chacor 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Support. I don't know Saxifrage very well, but he played a minor role in helping me set up Requests for feedback, a process where newcomers can seek feedback on articles they write (or major edits they make). For some time, he helped respond to feedback requests posted there, but he has not responded to a feedback request for a long time. Requests for feedback is getting backlogged, and desperately needs Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers to respond to feedback requests. If Saxifrage continues to respond to feedback requests, I will change my support level to Strong, and may even use MSN Messenger to bribe several Wikifriends into supporting him (just kidding about the bribing part). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support This editor could really use the admin tools; they seem to be an admin in all but status-change anyway! Good interactions with users, good use of edit summaries, contributions to main/Wiki/Project/userTalk spaces are all in order. (aeropagitica) 08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Mike | Trick or Treat 12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Shows an impressive level of civility in his interactions with other users. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. But my account is two and-a-half hours older :) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support; all is well, and appears to be a fine candidate indeed. I'm impressed by the nomination, by the way: it's quite a fine gesture. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. An impressive nomination, but more importantly, an impressive contribution to Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be any threat of abuse from this editor. AuburnPilot^Talk 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. I've seen plenty of good and nothing bad from Saxifrage.--ragesoss 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support good by me.-- danntm ^T _C 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Looks good. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I have seen nothing but great edits from this user. Keep up the great work. =) Nishkid64 19:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I like the candidate's self-realisation in Q3, which says a lot about his wiki-character. Experience and trustworthiness are areas in which I have no reservations about, either. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - Fairly new? You've been here 4 times as long as many admins. Shows good knowlege of wikipedia's policies, including Image policy --T-rex 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    It's the nominator who is fairly new, not Saxifrage.- gadfium 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ahh, that explains that... --T-rex 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

23. Support Had shown Good Judgement in the past and expect the same from him in future too  Doctor Bruno  23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Strong Nominator Support As per above. PStrait 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Support great answers to The Questions. KrakatoaKatie 04:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per nom, answers, comments above. Quality editor, no issues or worries. The sole oppose comment to date (below) appears highly unconvincing. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. I had no idea that he wasn't an admin already. — TKD::Talk 07:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. DarthVader 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Support but please don't be a scourge! - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Not even just a little one? :) No, I think I understand what you mean. I don't plan on being a scourge, just that I will likely be taking care of vandals who earn and waste their last chance templates, often enough. I probably could have worded that better. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

31. Support. I must admit that I did not read all of the nominated's answers to the questions. It's too long! hah. [cough] User is definetly qualified in most aspects. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. An editor whose first edits are to a a sandbox, and who immediately started using edit summaries back when practically no one made a fuss about them. I like that a lot. Seems eminently sane. - BanyanTree 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Mentors come in different forms. I'm confident that this nominee will make a good admin. Cheers -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Always seems civil and restrained. --Blue Tie 08:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Everything seems ok, no cons.--Húsönd 19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. No diffs. --Kbdank71 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Although I don't always agree with this editor, that should be taken as major vote of confidence for this user. It's clear he's open-minded, fair, supportive and, most of all, civil. Good choice. --Marriedtofilm 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
38. Support no danger of abuse --Steve 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
39. Support good contributions. PS to the nom- never be apologetic in your nomination. Just state the facts --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, a civil and reasonable editor. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong Support -- valuable spam fighter. --A. B. 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Whenever I come across Saxifrage, he is dealing with problematic spammers or vandals. There's a real risk if you do enough of that stuff that you'll cross some line once in a while -- usually WP:AGF (my own weakness) and/or WP:CIVIL. I have never seen that with Saxifrage. It's unusual to see so little opposition to a candidate who's done as much spam fighting; that says a lot about his suitability. --A. B. 16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Once, in a dispute with Saxifrage, he had a very legitimate reason not to assume good faith (I had requested arbitration, the arbitration did not go my way, but then after discussing with the arbiter, he changed his mind. I stated that I had successfully dealt with the issue in arbtration and Saxifrage pointed out that I lost). When he realized the mistake, he profusely apologized for not following AGF in a situation where I cant imagine anyone would have been able to AGF. That was one of the reasons I think he is a great wikipedian. PStrait 20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

42. Support, roused me from giving a one sentence reason for non-deletion here:[[1]] to a well rounded argument even though it contradicted his own opinion. Mallanox 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
43. Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
44. Support; will be an asset to the community. Bucketsofg 00:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    Support I support him, for his trying to reach NPOV, but he still has a lot to work to improve himself. Somehow I did sensed a little frustration about him, he sees some personal attacks where instead it was an irony towards his lack of arguments. Overall I trust him to be a good admin. Wissahickon Creek ^talk 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Crossed-out vote by sockpuppet of banned user. Khoikhoi 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

45. Support - A good editor who will make a good admin. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - Saxifrage edits well, is seemingly fully qualified, and is a solid Wikipedian. Sharkface217 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - One of those "I thought he was an admin" cases. I've seen him work on the WikiProject Spam quite a bit and he's the type of guy that needs a mop and will use it effectively. Pascal.Tesson 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
48. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
49. Strong support - He edits well, he's always polite and civil, and he doesn't lose his temper. He does a lot of admin-like work already, so the tools will just help him be better.--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
50. support. Looks like a good editor. NauticaShades 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
52. Support bodes well as budding admin. Agathoclea 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
53. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong support. This is a very rare type of nomination, a well-thought-out, well-written nomination from a newer user, which reflects on the candidate in a very positive way. Best of luck to you, against the vandals and trolls (like the one on this page.) Grandmasterka 07:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
55. Pile on support. Looks good to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
56. This is one of those people whom I rarely agree with but nevertheless think of as a constructive discussion partner. Join the mop mob! >Radiant< 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
57. Support 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:25 3 11 2006 (UTC)
58. Support per nom. Michael 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
59. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

    NOTE: Supports below come after the RfA is supposed to have ended _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

60. Support per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Mustafa Akalp^TC 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
62. Support Seems good  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
63. Support --no kiddin. I thought you were already an admin! --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Saxifrage has used the highly uncivil tactic of libelling users as wikipedia policy violators on their talk pages in the convincing format of making a polite suggestion that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties). That is a tactic that can not be spotted in a single edit (and therefore does not threaten one's reputation much), but must be seen by comparing multiple edits, and that is what makes it so underhanded. Saxifrage has also committed wikistalking. Saxifrage would therefore no doubt abuse the admin tools. GoodCop

   Such strong accusations MUST be backed up with diffs. Otherwise this is purely uncivil and is a personal attack. – Chacor 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

   Concur with Chacor. Note that GoodCop's talk page has since May 2006 had at the top the legend, "Note: Do not use this page to post libel in the convincing format of polite suggestions that deceptively appear to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties). Such behavior violates the wikipedia civility policy and will be reported." I don't know quite what is being referred to here as a general matter, and having quickly scanned Saxifrage's contributions I don't see any examples of this type of practice, either. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

   Finally an oppose vote! I was thinking it was too good to be true that there had been none so far. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of this. If it's true that I've managed to write in a way that looks deceptive, I'd like to pick that apart and figure out how to avoid coming off badly in the future. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

   In defence of the opposition, no one's participation must be backed up with diffs. To declare otherwise is quite inappropriate, especially considering that no Wikipedians who chose to support this RfA provided any diffs. Furthermore, while the wording is quite strong, it's definitely not a personal atttack - this is an RfA and the above is the Wikipedian's opinion of the candidate's admin abilities. Please don't jump on the lone opposer, especially as the RfA is highly likely to succeed. Every Wikipedian has the right to participate at RfA without fear of reproach. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

   Good point. I am still curious though. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

   I'll switch the emphasis. No one must provide diffs, but if they're not willing to back up their argument with evidence, they also can't expect it to be given the same weight. RfA is a consensus building exercise and evidence along with solid reasoning is most valuable. - Taxman ^Talk 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Thankyou, Chacor and Newyorkbrad, for being supporters of Saxifrage that demonstrate a similar behavior to what Saxifrage has done -libellously accusing your opponents who have made appropriate vote comments of violating wikipedia's civility and NPA policies, and in so doing, violating the very policies that you pretend to support. However, the fact that the civil Hoopydink supports Saxifrage certainly does not help my case against Saxifrage. A request for diffs is reasonable, but the accompanying libel is obviously not. I do not remember what pages I saw Saxifrages' abuses on (which I saw a while ago), and I don't think that I'll be able to find them within the vast number of edits. If people don't trust me, then that is their prerogative, but any libellous statements that I have violated wikipedia policy for making valid vote comments are unacceptable. I should also mention to third parties that Chacor was previously the user NSLE (as is admitted on Chacor's userpage), who was one of the most power-abusive admins in the history of wikipedia, and was de-sysopped by the ArbCom for it [2] (At least I found a diff THIS time). No wonder that Chacor would be so underhanded against RfA opponents; he's just acting as he usually does. I also note that Saxifrage is the only candidate on the WP:RfA page that Chacor supports. That is strong circumstantial evidence that Chacor supports Saxifrage so strongly because Chacor thinks that Saxifrage will abuse power as Chacor/NSLE did. Saxifrage has suggested that I help him to improve himself, and whether that request is honest or a ploy I do not know. I might implore Saxifrage to "not deliberately misinterpret appropriate statements as violations of wikipedia policy, particularly civility and NPA", but it likely would not change Saxifrage, the reason being that a person's fundamental behaviors are typically as immutable as one's politics. A personal attack is something that is false, irrelevant to the dispute at hand, and/or designed to discredit without an explanation. GoodCop 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

   Please don't make these kinds of accusations against those arguing in support of the candidate. Chacor's past is not the issue here, and from what I can tell, you're jumping to conclusions (just because someone only has one vote on the RfA page at the moment does not mean they have an agenda). Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Coredesat 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   And thank you, Coredesat, for implicitely falsely accusing me of violating the POINT policy, and libellously accusing me of making accusations simply because people support Saxifrage (when I had clearly criticised them for having made false accusations). In so doing, you commit the same false accusation behavior that I have seen from Saxifrage, Chacor, and Newyorkbrad, and yet you did not make the same accusation of Chacor or Newyorkbrad (supporters of Saxifrage) who the accusation would be less inappropriate for, and in so doing, you are disrupting this RfA. You know full well that past actions are related to current character and motives, especially when those past actions are related to specific current actions, as is the case here. As for jumping to conclusions, I said that it is 'circumstantial evidence', not 'proof'. GoodCop 03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   Everyone: Keep your comments pertinent to the matter at hand, please. We're not here to resolve disputes or slam each other up and down the block -- we're here to decide if Saxifrage should be an admin, and nothing more. Any further discussion in this thread of discussion should be directed to this RfA's talk page. Luna Santin 10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

   GoodCop, could you please provide some diffs and information, so we can investigate your allegations against Saxifrage? If you don't, we can't do anything. In the real world, if you walked up to someone and called him a thief, he could sue you for slander. Even if he really was a thief, you would have to prove, using evidence, that he's a thief. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Makes me nervous. Everyking 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Ben Aveling 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Spawn Man 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - I have no opinion on this user whatsoever, hence why I'm placing this in the "Neutral" section. In fact, I don't even know this user, so it begs the question why I even placed a neutral vote here in the first place. Hope you make it Saxifrage... Damn, I just made myself un-neutral. I better go.... Spawn Man 05:13, 30 October 2006 (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.