Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alfakim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Alfakim

Final (14/25/8) ended 16:40, July 9, 2006 (UTC)

Alfakim (talk · contribs) – In my time here at Wikipedia, I have seen few people with as much dedication as Alfakim. His insight into discussions at the Stargate WikiProject have proved invaluble, as has his knowledge of templates. I feel that as an admin, Alfakim would bring that same envigorating spirit to the rest of the community. American Patriot 1776 01:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Gratefully accepted. --Alfakim-- talk 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Super-duper-nom support American Patriot 1776 16:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Rama's Arrow 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, I know his work from WP:WPSG and he does it really well. --Tone 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support, good answers to all questions but #3.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 22:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I know Alfakim personally from WikiProject Stargate, and in my experience he is a nice guy who responds well to criticism. I didn't see anything uncivil in the conflict mentioned in question 3. Finally, while the lack of edit summary usage is a concern, I have faith in Alfakim to respond to the complaint. Would reccomend asking the hypothetical Rick in the question below if there was a reason for his actions. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. SushiGeek 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. DarthVader 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support No Way Back 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Ultra Strong Support!!! I have interacted with Aflakim a lot, both in the Stargate project and elsewhere. His knowlage of guidelines, and his ideas on how to make articles follow those guidelines are amazing. His template making skills are extreme, and has contributed greatly in that area. I am very surprised that this RfA is going so badly. The only major oppisition point made here is that he has focused too much on Stargate. Topics of a users contributions are not a reason to oppose. All votes that oppose souly because too many of his edits are related to Stargate are invalid. Other people have stated that they doubt his knowlage of wikipedia guidelines. On the contrary, he has done more than any other project member to get the Stargate project up to the standards laid out by our policies. I don't see how anyone can't support this canidate. Tobyk777 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, users are permitted to oppose for any reason whatsoever. Only votes from blocked users and anons, or possibly very new users, may be discounted (assuming no suspicion of sockpuppetry, which would probably fall under the "very new users" category). I once saw someone oppose a nominee for not being multilingual.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per above. NOVO-REI 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: New user, but seems to be acting in good faith. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      I'll take it as good faith. The user seems to be at ease at wikipedia with a couple of DYK submissions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    How come when new users oppose we say "bad faith" but when they support we say "good faith, hopefully"? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 21:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Because WP:BITE can be a difficult policy to follow, when many newbies, due to lack of familiarity with our plethora of policies/guidelines/etc., do things which are completely outside accepted norms? Just a thought...
  11. support good with templates? Legit!!! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. ugen64 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Chrisd87 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Enough edits that I can trust he won't abuse the tools, and no evidence of incivility. moink 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose -> Strong Oppose (as explained below) - The candidate's edits in WP namespace are mostly in Sandbox and Wikiproject Stargate, I doubt the candidate's knowledge in policies. Also, no evidence of vandalism fighting in the last 1500 mainspace edits, suggesting lack of RC patrol activities. I doubt the candidate's abilities in completing the things said in Q1. --WinHunter (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Further analysis of the user's edits to user talk namespace suggesting only ~10 "test" warnings were issued up till now. --WinHunter (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've just been at university for a term, I haven't done many "chores" for some weeks. Adminship would obviously make chores take less time. Simple things like reviewing CSD and taking action wouldn't be time-consuming at all. As for the test warnings, I'm sure I've made a few more than that, but in general I simply revert vandalism more often than I both revert and warn -- again, adminship would make this easier. I am aware of policies, but more often read them than edit them. --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    I made that count from your editing summary of your edits in user talk namespace. I already went one step further in detecting some which you missed editing summary (like [1] & [2]). If there are still some more I missed, then it is likely that you did not provide edit summary which is equallty bad. Also, reverting vandalism comes with warnings, it's inseperateable because warnings are vital to stop one from keep vandalizing. As for policy awareness, if you haven't participate much in the *FD debates then I am worrying about your ability of closing them, I really can't judge your knowledge unless it's proven with actions. --WinHunter (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Reason for changing to strong oppose: The candidate just posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate concerning this RFA, which I believe violated WP:SPAM#Internal spamming: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." --WinHunter (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above, admins need at least basic experience with tackling vandalism. User seems to have not read WP:SIG either.--Andeh 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    I do have plenty of experience -- both inside and outside of wikipedia. As for the signature though, that shouldn't be a problem big enough to oppose on? --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but I'm sticking with oppose as of lack of RC patrolling. Sorry. Do a reasonable amount of RC Patrolling for a month and make another RfA and I'm sure you'll succeed. You are very good and valued editor!--Andeh 01:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Provisional oppose will reconsider if something is done about that unreasonably huge sig. Opabinia regalis 18:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral.
    any better? --Alfakim-- talk 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per my different standards: (p) contributions (including project space contributions) seem to be focused almost entirely on subjects related to Stargate, (q) low percentage of edit summaries (looking at contributions), depsite the 91% for major edits reported by the program. Also, although I almost never oppose on these grounds, (g) that signature is quite lengthy. joturner 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Bad place wrong time. I've been on a run recently with my Stargate-focus. Basically administering the Stargate project has necessitated a lot of edits there, but it doesn't mean its my sole focus. I have put a lot of work into WikiProject Usability (i.e. making wikipedia namespace pages easier to read and look at, especially welcome pages). Also, I more often just read policies than edit them. --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Mr. Turner - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Restored Kevin_b_er 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Careless destruction of an oppose while editing this page. Its been 15 minutes, I don't think you noticed. Damage to other users comments, esspecially an oppose on a page like casts a lot of doubt on care in editing when it really counts. Kevin_b_er 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Ouch. Completely unintentional. Edit conflict + very small on diff = accidental mistake.--Alfakim-- talk 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Winhunter. Roy A.A. 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Fad (ix) 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I just scrolled through all your contributions and can see little evidence of vandalfighting and no evidence (series of reverts) of RC patrolling. Otherwise a great editor. I largely liked your responses to the questions. Use edit summaries more please. If you dedicate yourself to vandalfighting more I can see no reason why I wouldn't support. ViridaeTalk 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Such lack of variety is contributions, lack of warnings, lenght of old signature, and destruction of oppose all worry me. SorryGuy 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Destruction of oppose? I think the user has every right to speak out to try and correct themselves in their own RfA.--Andeh 02:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think SorryGuy isn't referring to candidate's reply to opposing votes, please refer to the diff links provided by Kevin b er above. --WinHunter (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oh my.--Andeh 16:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Just to clarify I was indeed referring to Kevin b er's diff. SorryGuy 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose more and broader experience, more edit summary usage, more vandal fighting. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak oppose. Would prefer a broader level of experience than Stargate alone, and more interaction with users. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per WinHunter and lack of experience in certain areas.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. -lethe talk + 13:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Winhunter. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strongly Oppose per Winhunter. Also, you don't seem all that interested in becoming an administrator. --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    No I'm definitely interested. What gave you the opposite idea? --Alfakim-- talk 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per WinHunter. I'm sorry, but that edit screams, "I'm losing, help me out, guys!" The idea is to demonstrate that Wikipedia is losing if you're not a janitor, and that, I feel, will come with a few more months of doing what you can now in the areas you plan to tackle once you're handed the mop, bucket and keys. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think you've all read into it far too much. The RfA was going pretty slowly, and we've got quite a little community going at the project, I just wanted to get them involved. If you look, they haven't actually come and spam-supported me. --Alfakim-- talk 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Lack of experience in tackling vandalism. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, Lots to worry about here, the internal spamming is not a hanging offence but not what I look for in a candidate. Stick to what you know, if you need the tools you've got plenty of pointers on what to work at. Deizio talk 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. While the limited contributions outside of Stargate, the limited amount of RC patrolling, and the spamming issue wouldn't be dealbreakers for me by themselves, together they add up to just enough for an oppose. I encourage you to get more experience in areas such as deletion debates and RC patrol, I'd probably support with a month or two of experience there. BryanG(talk) 21:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    Switched to neutral, see below. BryanG(talk) 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Orane (talk • cont.) 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Reluctant Oppose just for now. Make a commitment to reverting vandalism, and you will have my support. You might like to check out my upcoming vandal fighting project, here: Vandal Cleanup. My advice would be to get a month or so of experience of reverting, and then I will propose you myself if I need to!!! Abcdefghijklm 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? Don't be ridiculous. Administrators have better things to do than reverting vandalism, and there is no requirement that an administrator has to be an anti-vandal fighter. He could be, you know, a good article writer ... without which reverting vandalism would be pointless, by the way, because there'd be nothing to protect. I've seen a bit too much of this focus on vandalism here recently. Also, I can't help but notice your plug for your own vaporware anti-vandalism project. Is that what this oppose statement is, a chance to plug some anti-vandalism stuff? --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    How does an editor who devotes their time to writing articles need admin tools. The focus on antivandal skills is because as part of their work, someone who is doing RC patrol will come accross situations where admin tools are needed. Admin tools are not a badge of honour or a form of being recognised by the community as a valuable contributor. ViridaeTalk 04:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    I would help out in XfD and CSD, as in, the actual admin of it, but I can't right now (not being an admin). Although I admit I'm not a hardcore dedicated 24/7 RC Patroller I do do it, and I think I could help out more as an admin. --Alfakim-- talk 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose for low usage of minor edit summaries.--Jusjih 09:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Weak Oppose – good contributor, but needs a wider range of experience before becoming an administrator (not necessarily with anti-vandalism, though I do think experience in this area is useful) – Gurch 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Weak Oppose poor minor edit summaries and low talk and user talk edits. Highway Batman! 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Weak oppose: "Oppose" mainly because it doesn't sound like he's had sufficiently deep or broad experience in dealing with strong controversy and inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. RC patrol is not critical but it is one way to get this experience. I'm less experienced than Alphakim is but I'm not sure that I don't have more experience with this stuff than he does. Lack of edit summaries and signatures sounds nitpicky but are very important habits since it's all about trust and transparency when working with others. My own lapse this week in not signing two controversial edits looked fishy enough to make an already frazzled fellow editor go into attack mode thinking I was trying to be sneaky. My opposition is only "weak" becuase of the positive stuff I see: No evidence of incivility or imperiousness. Good work ethic. Apparently well-respected within his "community" (Stargaters). I could care less about article topics -- when ready, he can become the Stargate sheriff. Accidental deletion of User:CrazyRussian's opposing comment was likely a "good faith mistake" and does not factor into my decision. (I'm very careful about previewing my own mistakes before I make them; pehaps Alphakim is, too). Old signature -- who cares? Sounds like a great candidate when he gets more experience
    --A. B. 02:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. It looks like this has already been pretty much decided, but I made a promise to myself that I was going to do an in-depth review of one random RfA today, and Alfakim's name came up, so, here goes: Having read all of the above votes, I'm still left with a question in my mind as to why this individual needs admin access. Looking at his edit summaries isn't much help, since he tends not to use them. Also, I'm concerned by his answer to "how he would use his admin access", where he implied that he spends a lot of time doing random vandal fighting, but then that was proven to not be correct. As for his posting about the RfA in the Stargate Project, I don't have a problem with that, since it looked to me like a good faith "alert to interested editors", and not a way to encourage voting for or against. I know that in the projects that I routinely participate in (such as WikiProject:Poland), I would definitely be interested if any of the editors that I know were applying for adminship, though that wouldn't always mean that I would Support them.  ;) Ultimately, though Alfakim looks like a good Wikipedian, I just don't see that there's any need to give him admin access, or that it would be of any benefit to Wikipedia as a whole. However, I do wish to commend him for his work on the Stargate articles. --Elonka 17:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I really want to support this candidate. He is kind and courtious, and is willing to admit his mistakes. He is a tireless worker, and has shown that he is perfectly willing to do chores, even if they get mundane (I found the work on adding fair use rationales especially impressive here). The fact that he added a self-promotion into the DeviantART article concerns me. However, everybody does make mistakes. I will have to look into how this candidate reacted later today. I really want to support though. -- Where 17:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    That was one of my earliest edits, and I reacted by realising I'd done something stupid and apologising. See my talk page archive1. --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Until questions are answered--Ac1983fan 19:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC) change to Weak support
  2. Per above, if this user is very dedicated to WP why are the questions unansweredd. Also, does not completely satisfy my standards. Neutral nonetheless. --WillMak050389 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Questions weren't answered because I wasn't on my computer when they were posted :P --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    ::That's ok, I'm sorry that you do not meet all of my criteria editwise and such. Good luck though. --WillMak050389 02:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral New sig is much better and the positive response is encouraging, but he has a very narrow range of interest (most recent group of non-Stargate edits I found was in April) and seems to make a fair number of mistakes that would individually be no big deal, except that they keep recurring. Opabinia regalis 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Could you let me know what these mistakes are? (--alfakim [not logged in])
    Mostly the other issues cataloged here, none of which are significant on their own but there's a lot of little things put together. Having a huge sig in the first place (WP:SIG has gotten pretty well-known lately), accidently overwriting a vote, posting this RfA link at the Stargate project (I don't think it's a big deal, but reading previous RfA's should indicate that a lot of people are opposed to the idea). However, I don't care about presence or absence of warnings after incidental vandalism reverts. Would probably support in the future. Opabinia regalis 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian {T C @} 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I know this user quite well from the Stargate project, and he's an excellent editor, but I'm just not sure he's ready to be an admin. Admin powers wouldn't help him in his current work, so I think it's better to wait. --Tango 13:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. The guy seems alright... but I'm not sure they are ready for adminship. Nephron  T|C 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. I've been thinking this one over some, and I feel like I've been a bit too harsh. In no way does this user deserve this much opposition, and in the end I don't feel like it'd be a great disaster if he became an admin. I'm not confident enough to actually support, but I am going to switch to neutral on this candidate. I do encourage you to come back in a few months, and hopefully there'll be a different outcome then. BryanG(talk) 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Because the French just scored in the World Cup. Karmafist p 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

I seem to be getting a lot of opposition for the following reasons:

  1. Accidentally removing an oppose vote. Come on.
  2. Posting about my RfA on a project talk page. Easy to read bad faith into that. Go and see yourself though: I wasn't encouraging support-spam and nor has it happened. The project makes a bit of a thing about participants becoming admins, and we have a little bit of a community going on there.
  3. My old signature. Old signature.

There are three good reasons to oppose me I think, but none of them should really be hanging offences:

  1. Focus on Stargate.
  2. Lackadaisical with edit summaries.
  3. Not a very very fervent vandal fighter.

I don't see how a focus of editing has anything to do with this to be honest. I always use edit summaries when I make large changes. Always. And vandal-fighting isn't the only thing an admin does (although I definitely want to do this). Ultimately guys, as an admin I simply will be helping out. I won't be a 24/7 RC Patroller, but so what if I'm only a 1/5 one? I just have a little less time than some other people. I will help out, so why so much opposition? --Alfakim-- talk 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with every point you made. I don't think your old sginature (which was fine), your focus on Stargate, or accidentaly removing an oppose, are serious objections. Who cares if you signature is long? Whats wrong with editing where you want to? Everyone makes mistakes. I am amazed at how harsh everone is being here. Also, about the posting of this on the Stargate project: Most of the people he has interacted with are there, since it's the focus of his editing. The people that know him, and what he does are most qualified to vote in this. I have interacted with Aflakim a lot and know he is a great editor and a great person. I wouldn't have been able to express this if I didn't see what he posted on WP:WPSG. Tobyk777 00:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


About my signature (now changed, previously: -- Alfakim --  talk ), who else thought the old version was unacceptable? I really liked it but hey. --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked the look of it too. However I can see why it drew complaints. I was wary of adding the sup+talk to mine because long ones annoy me. ViridaeTalk 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with your sig, per WP:SIG, is that it is a template, and thus is susceptible to vandalism and an "avoidable drain on server resources", since each time you change your signature, all the talk pages which have it must be re-cached. Instead of using a template, try going to "my preferences/User profile", checking the "raw signature" box, and putting your signature there. You will then be able to sign with it using 4 tildas. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Careful about that statement. Alfakim has a sig template, but its not translcuded, rather its subst:'ed. But prefs gives a person the ~~~~, so using a template to subst: is rather pointless. Kevin_b_er 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you're right. Alfakim's sig is only transcluded on 12 pages. I guess I must have noticed it on one of those 12. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just say that those who think that Alfakim's signature is too big, see my previous signature. Lol! Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Username        Alfakim
Total edits     4386
Distinct pages edited   1394
Average edits/page      3.146
First edit      21:02, 31 January 2005
        
(main)  1664
Talk    268
User    157
User talk       169
Image   640
Template        470
Template talk   152
Help    3
Help talk       3
Category        37
Category talk   1
Wikipedia       580
Wikipedia talk  214
Portal  27
Portal talk     1
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: I'll help out with anything I can. Right now it'll be 90% RC Patrolling, deletion debates and particularly CSD, but I would gradually expand, and certainly be doing odd jobs where I can. I already do my best to remove vandalism, and being an admin would help out. Although not so much a chore, I would like to help out in the general maintenance and improvement of Wikipedia as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm rather proud of my efforts at the Stargate WikiProject. I've helped bring it together and coordinate it, organising information on the project page and making it easy for contributors to see where work is needed. Within that project, I've put a lot of effort into bringing the article Stargate (device) up to FA standard (not quite there yet!). I've also made a lot of (I regard, useful!) templates, both inside and outside of the project, and contributed significantly to other miscellaneous articles.
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 recall some conflicts over the article deviantART; my response, as ever, was to discuss it on the talk page. Ultimately we were satisfied with removing some of the more WP:POV parts of the "Criticism" section. In general I think talk-page discussion is vital.

Question from Where 1. You find out that your best friend was indefinately blocked from Wikipedia for making a legal threat. You note that the user was not properly warned about Wikipedia's policy on legal threats, and that an indefinate block is overkill in this situation anyway. What do you do? Please include summaries that you would provide in the summary box for any actions you would take (editing a page, unblocking, etc).

A: Basically an impossible question to answer, due to not being a lawyer and the "legal threat" not being defined. The law is the law, not being told about the policy is pretty irrelevent. I'd consult who blocked him to see why, and decide with them whether the block can be shortened (considering I trust my friend's transgression was actually minor, e.g. an accidental copy violation. Obviously if he had actually done something really illegal with intent, I would let the block stay). --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Optional questions by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs)(Optional for a support vote, that is. :))
  1. Now, let's say you are an admin, and you check WP:AIV to find out that User:Bob has been listed as a recurrent vandal at the Example page, and also violated 3RR on the page Cheese. What do you do?
    A: Check his talk page to see if he's been warned appropriately, look at his contributions to see the depth of his vandalism. Then if he's had plenty of warnings already, enact a block (as appropriate based on what his contributions say about his vandalistic tendencies) and tell him why. Otherwise I just warn him. I wouldn't block on 3RR though unless he was doing like a 28RR. --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Same situation as above. Now, you go to check Bob's contributations, and you see no such evidence of vandalism or 3RR violation. The User who added bob to WP:AIV (User:Rick) is blanking Bob's userpage repeatedly, and calling him a sex-obbsessed vandal-whore on Bob's talk page. What do you do?
    A: Tell Rick to stop or be blocked. --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
    A: LOL! Is this an answer? --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Lastly, if you are not promoted to admin, do you still plan to become one?
    A: Ultimately I just want to help Wikipedia out more. I'd never abuse the powers and would always follow policy (even if that means reading a new policy first)... I can't see how, doing that, I wouldn't be helping out. So yes, I would still like to be one. --Alfakim-- talk 21:44, 2 July 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.