Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrew Levine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Andrew Levine

Final (65/18/2) Ended 20:10, 2006-08-16 (UTC)

Andrew Levine (talk · contribs) – I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003, going on strong almost 3 years with no long breaks. In that time I've made almost 3500 edits, of which more than 1000 800 are in the Wikipedia namespace.

  • I've never been blocked or gotten into a major editing dispute. If someone doesn't agree with my reasoning, I prefer offering compromises to fighting.
  • I've done a lot of work ensuring that images have proper copyrights, that statements are properly cited, and that global/neutral views are presented, in a wide variety of fields. In some of my early edits (late 2003 and early 2004), before Wikipedia's policies on such matters were formulated, I was a little less diligent, but I changed as Wikipedia did.
  • I have helped to remove POV from articles, even in cases where this meant removing or changing statements I agreed with.
  • I've participated in many discussions over policy and deletions, comporting myself in a civil manner.
  • I was the primary agent in polishing up Krazy Kat, writing most of the article's current prose, tracking down out-of-print books to add references and public domain images, and restructuring it. After a very smooth FAC nomination (with only a single, quickly removed Oppose), Krazy Kat became a Featured Article. Other articles I edited heavily and reorganized as part of a successful effort to bring them to Featured status were Arrested Development and Canadian federal election, 1993 (though Brian0918 and SimonP, respectively, did much more work than me in these two cases).

I want to become an administrator because I want to be able to more effectively fight vandalism, close deletions, and cool off heated disputes. Wikipedia is growing quickly thanks to media attention, but mixed in with all the helpful users are vandals, attention seekers, and marketers. We need more admins to combat this, and I can bring as much Wikipedia experience as almost anyone who doesn't already have admin privileges. Question me with regard to my specific positions towards whatever issue interests you, and I will answer in detail. Andrew Levine 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Andrew Levine 20:08, 9 August 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, 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 plan to rollblack vandalism and block vandals as needed, enforce arbitration, assist with deletions, and use protection powers to give disputes time to cool off.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As noted above, bringing Krazy Kat from a disorganized state with little information to a Featured Article that easily passed, without any battles, is my proudest contribution in writing articles. Andrew Levine 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
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 think the closest I ever came to real frustration in editing an article was over Black Canadian, where I wanted to add Michaëlle Jean to a list of notable Black Canadians that existed there at the time, and Bearcat was opposed because Jean was already named in the article lead. After some back-and-forth discussion on the talk page, I offered a compromised which BearCat gladly accepted. (The compromise was rendered moot when the list was later split off into a new article).

Optional question from BryanG

4. I see that you have not activated your Wikipedia email. Why is that, and will you activate it now?
Not sure what you mean, as my preferences show that my e-mail is activated. Andrew Levine 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the problem was, it's fixed now. BryanG(talk) 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Why did you recently create a new userbox in template space? --Cyde Weys 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Some context for readers: The userbox in question (since deleted by Cyde and recreated in userspace at User:Andrew Levine/Userboxes/user wcw) was intended to be used for fans of poet William Carlos Williams. To answer your question, I felt that the use of userboxes for certain non-controversial subjects like literature (and excluding contentious issues, e.g. religion or politics) is permissible on Wikipedia. I understand that officially implementing the German approach has some measure of support, and in deference to its supporters, for the forseeable future (i.e. until we have a clearer policy) I will not be making new userboxes in Wikipedia namespace. However, the German approach also has a large number of opponents, and has not been adopted as policy. It is still an issue over which reasonable users may differ. Andrew Levine 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments
1 Users email is now active. :) Dlohcierekim 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Andrew Levine (over the 3525 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 955 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 11, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 29, November, 2003
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 29.7% Minor edits: 36.94%
Average edits per day: 4.99 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 491 edits): Major article edits: 43.3% Minor article edits: 47.95%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3525 edits shown on this page and last 27 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.17% (6)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.73% (61)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 23.01% (811)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 22 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 17.94%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 8.2% (289 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.11% (4 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.23% (8 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 0.57% (20 edit(s)) (9 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.17% (6 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0% (0 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1811 | Average edits per page: 1.95 | Edits on top: 4.11%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 20.45% (721 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 3.46% (122 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.52% (230 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 60.4% (2129 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 58.84% (2074) | Article talk: 4.06% (143)
User: 3.8% (134) | User talk: 2.5% (88)
Wikipedia: 21.73% (766) | Wikipedia talk: 2.7% (95)
Image: 2.98% (105)
Template: 1.96% (69)
Category: 0.94% (33)
Portal: 0.17% (6)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.34% (12)

Username Andrew_Levine
Total edits 3496
Distinct pages edited 1801
Average edits/page 1.941
First edit 21:02, 28 November 2003
 
(main) 2072
Talk 143
User 131
User talk 82
Image 104
Image talk 1
Template 68
Template talk 11
Category 33
Wikipedia 750
Wikipedia talk 95
Portal 6
Support
  1. I think he gets the job done. Seems intelligent, level-headed, and willing. AdamBiswanger1 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. In my opinion, Andrew's contributions to Wikipedia are more than sufficient for adminship. --Gray Porpoise 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support An experienced editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, waiving talk requirements. This user is so experienced, I trust him despite the lack of talk edits. I know most of mine are blabber, anyway. No actual reason to believe he will be a failure as a sysop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - you seem like an experienced, level-headed editor who can be trusted with the admin tools :). Though your answers to the questions are a bit short, your nomination statement sums things up nicely. Your user talk edits are kind of low, but not reason enough for me not to support you. Good luck. Fabricationary 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    If you would like me to elaborate on my responses, feel free to add specific questions and I will address them as well as I can. Andrew Levine 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. Michael 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support More than meets my standards. Low edit count/time served is probably a matter of quality/quantity. User:Andrew Levine's talk page reveals involvement in FAC drives and a lack of incivility. AfD discussions I saw revealed no problems. Low talk count may also be a matter of quality/quantity. The FAC drive discussions I saw show me he can communicate. Although there is a lack of reports to AIV, I believe User_talk:Andrew_Levine is careful enough to distinguish between newbie mistakes and vandalism and will not be carried away by over zealous RCPatrollers. Clear thinking and articlulate, he will do well in arbitration. Also, meets 1FC. :) Dlohcierekim 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Further rationale. "Featured article writers need the flag to help maintain featured article pages themselves. This is very very important, as the goal of wikipedia is ultimately to create as many featured articles as possible. They will hopefully not need to use their flag often, but when they need it they *really* need it. (Kim Bruning) :) Dlohcierekim 18:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. He has The Article. -- Миборовский 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - good editor abakharev 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support High quality of edits makes up for the low edit count relative to time here. Fireplace 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Edit countis can be fatal and should be negated in some circumstances. Yanksox 04:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. - Mailer Diablo 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. - Jeffklib 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, long commitment, wide ranged edits, responds to changes, writes articles, FA participation i.e. solid editor. feydey 11:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Wikipedia could use some more level-headed admins, and the fact that Andrew's never been in a major content dispute is a definite plus in my book. Good luck! Icewolf34 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per above. Newyorkbrad 15:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support; long-time editor, interested in maintenance tasks, trustworthy, and cool-headed. Those objecting over lack of article talk and user talk edits should consider that work on WP:PR and WP:FAC requires significant community interaction. --Spangineeres (háblame) 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Normally I oppose editors with weak edit summary usage, but you are strong in other areas and have already indicated a plan to improve that area. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Excellent record, gifted editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per AdamBis and Fabrictionary and consistent with my RfA criteria. Joe 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Anyone whose been with us that long deserves the mop, and maybe a barnstar... RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. This editor is clearly ready for the tools and won't misuse them. Agent 86 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, largely per Dlohcierekim and also meets my criteria. My only complaint is the low edit summary usage, and I see you've already said you'll improve it. BryanG(talk) 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    According to what's under oppose, the candidate doesn't appear to meet your criteria.--Andeh 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Whoops, I forgot to check the email link (I assume that's the one you mean). Neutral until my optional question is answered. BryanG(talk) 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Back to support now that it's fixed. BryanG(talk) 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support I'd like to see more use of edit summaries, but otherwise a review of your contributions convinces me you'd be a valuable addition to the team of admins. Gwernol 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, trustworthy editor who deserves the tools. JYolkowski // talk 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support, seems to cover all the bases. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Weak support Support, because he seems to be a good solid editor. Weak because he states he wants to help fight vandalism but shows no previous indicatsion that he has. Vandal fighting produces a LOT of user talk edits, and these seem to be lacking. ViridaeTalk 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support I'm sure he knows all the rules by now! —Khoikhoi 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support If Andrew is commenting on FAC's, at peer review and elsewhere, that is sufficient. My vote is based on that and the fact that I see zero evidence that he will abuse admin tools...it's that simple.--MONGO 06:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Per above. Comment: Although I have had no interaction with this user in my brief past here on Wikipedia, I am casting my yes vote saddened to see that a contributor with more than 3500 edits can receive almost a dozen oppose votes which, in all fairness, seem to be based on technicalities. Moreover, I fail to see anything in this user's history that would suggest a possibility that he would abuse administrator privileges. Besides, he has been contributing for years which for me is sufficient proof of more than adequate experience needed for adminship. RedZebra 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support based on excellent experience. Not going to oppose based on edit summary usage, but please work on it in the future. :) RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support based on seeing the user around and generally liking what I've seen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per nom and others. --Kbdank71 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support is a good editor and I believe will make a good Admin. LarryQ 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Andrew has good experience and is a clear asset to the encyclopedia. This is what adminship is for; none of the standards people are using below have any bearing on misuse of admin tools. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per nom and the work of Andrew's I have seen. SorryGuy 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. I believe that Andrew is unlikely to misues admin tools. Aren't I Obscure? 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support --Jay(Reply) 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. DarthVader 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support - seems mature and level headed. My only concern is the way he is addressing, one-on-one, all the people who oppose him. I'm more impressed when an RfA candidate lets things run their course and only deals with specific, fixable problems. Metamagician3000 01:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Here, here! :) Dlohcierekim 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support – as a protest vote to all those opposing who have absolutely no idea how FAC functions, or how deep a discussion it actually is. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. Merovingian - Talk 11:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support 3 years, no evidence of misbehavior... Says it all, really.  Grue  18:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support - I sympathize to some degree with concerns about community involvement, but I have to respectfully disagree. I have seen Andrew getting out and doing stuff and talking about it. His contributions and behavior have been strongly positive overall. Support. Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. After being neutral for a bit, after some speaking with Andrew Levine I believe he is level headed and cautious enough to not misuse the tools. Specific examples that show he has been involved in possibly tense situations could be Talk:Krazy_Kat#Grammar_and_referencing_fixes_reverted and Talk:Black_Canadian#Micha.C3.ABlle_Jean. As for concerns that he is not too involved in vandalism reverting, I don't feel that this is a strong enough reason to oppose as he has indeed stated that he will get more familiar with the area before blocking people. The fact stands that Andrew Levine is the sort of administrator who mainly deals with maintenance of articles (in particular featured articles), and while he may not necessarily use the tools too much for common areas such as WP:AIV, I don't believe he will abuse them. Cowman109Talk 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. There's nothing wrong with taking your time to be sure you're right. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support plenty of evidence that he wouldn't abuse admin tools; no evidence that he would. --W.marsh 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Absolutely -- Samir धर्म 04:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  51. Weak support - responses to opposes have been polite. Kimchi.sg 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  52. TacoDeposit 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Some P. Erson 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support: seems like a great bloke. Thumbelina 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  55. Strong Support per many of the above. Carmen Chamelion 15:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  56. Strong support: I have had the pleasure of collaborating with Andrew Levine for a month and find him to be level headed and quick to engage in discussions when needed as well as knowledgeable about Wikipedia's processes and policies. I think he would make an excellent admin and is certainly experienced in helping new editors as he has done so with me.--Opark 77 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support - CFIF (talk to me) 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. - Bobet 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  59. Changed from neutral. -- Steel 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. I think he can be trusted, low talk edits or no. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support The low talk edits don't bother me he seems very responisble. Just promise me you will get into more discussions Æon Insane Ward 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    Weak Support Seems like a good candidate, but something in my gut says that something is happening here beyond what I can see. Attic Owl 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing bureaucrat: This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. --Cyde Weys 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. Edits are consistently high-quality, and he seems to have enough experience. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support High Quality edits and I see no evidence that he will abuse his admin tools. --RicDod 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Reluctant oppose. Article talk and user talk edits well below my criteria. Needs more experience in communication/interaction. Themindset 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    A user with this much experience oughtta be trustworthy. Consider waiving. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose unfortunately, per low edit summary usage, 59% for major edits. Would gladly drop my oppose vote if Andrew Levine would promise to pay more attention to the issue in the future, and/or change his preferences to warn when an edit is to be submitted without a summary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    I admit I have been lax on this in the past (particularly when I was just starting 3+ years ago). I will change my preferences right now to add the warning. Andrew Levine 23:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    I have withdrawn my oppose vote, per Andrew's comment above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above and answers to general questions that were too brief. DrL 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    If you would like me to elaborate on my answers in detail, simply add questions to the "Questions for the candidate" section above, starting with #4, and I will be glad to provide a satisfactory response. Andrew Levine 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Talking about things and using edit summaries is nice. SoaP 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    The 200 or so edits I've made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia:Peer review surely count towards discussion experience, I'd imagine, even though they're not listed as "talk page" edits. Also, note my response to Oleg above re: edit summaries. Andrew Levine 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Also, this user has been blocked twice in the past three weeks for trolling and is currently blocked for vandalism. Andrew Levine 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose user states in A1 they want to block vandals and use rollback, yet I couldn't find a trace of any vandal fighting, such as warning any vandals via their talk page. So I get the impression the user has absolutely no experience with dealing with vandals. User is a great editor (see nom) but I feel adminship is a bit early and the user doesn't require it just yet.--Andeh 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Andrew has 143 edits to talk, 82 to user talk, and 2,072 to articles in three years. That's nowhere near regular enough, and it shows almost zero community interaction. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Again, I'm not sure why some are discarding my 250+ edits to Featured Article Candidates and Review as not counting towards community interaction. Andrew Levine 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I feel that the candidate needs more experience in the areas he wishes to use the administrative tools. Very little vandal fighting shows an inexperience in, well, vandal fighting. This is one of the two main areas the candidate mentions that he would use the extra buttons for in his answer to Q1 and his editing history shows that he has little interest or experience in either. The second main area the candidate mentions is dispute resolution. Very low user talk participation shows that the candidate is inexperienced there as well. Should the candidate gain some more experience in those areas, I'd be happy to support, as the candidate has been on the project for quite a while, which shows an eager willingness to help out. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Important note to all opposing on grounds of my inexperience in anti-vandalism: I have struck this from my reasons for becoming an admin. I pledge not to use administrative tools against vandalism and to focus on my other areas of interest instead, at least until I have more experience fighting vandalism with normal user privileges. Andrew Levine 11:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think you should withdraw this pledge. All admins should deal with vandals from time to time when they see them. Also, I don't think your answering so many of the oppose comments is creating a good impression. Let it run its course. That said, I voted in your support because you seem like a good, mature user, if a little uptight about the RfA. Metamagician3000 01:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I appreciated the comment and I like to see RfA candidates address the issues raised by the participants, at it gives the community more information about said issues as well a better sense of the candidate. I am sticking with my two cents for now, but I don't think that commenting on the issues is bad or makes the candidate at all uptight. Good luck Andrew! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per answers to questions (no trace of vandal fighting) and low number of talk edits. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per SlimVirgin's summary and per Grafikm. It's important to have some idea of what real vandalism is, as opposed to merely being "edits that you don't like". —freak(talk) 02:32, Aug. 11, 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per above. And also Andrew, pointing out that someone has been blocked before doesn't mean that he/she can't say oppose.  QuizQuick  19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    I don't object to User:Son of a Peach's right to oppose, I'm just making a note for the benefit of the admins who oversee the process. Andrew Levine 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as per other opposing comments. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Per above. Number of his edits are very short even He has been contributing in Wikipedia for 3 years. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I hate to do this to a long-tenured user, but I do get the feeling that experience in admin-related areas is weak. I share the concerns of FoN and SV, but what finally mind up my mind was this little slip above: "I don't object to User:Son of a Peach's right to oppose, I'm just making a note for the benefit of the admins who oversee the process. Andrew Levine 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)" As every admin should know, bureaucrats oversee RfA -- adminship confers no special status particular to this forum. Xoloz 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Come on Xoloz. I am sure there is a more productive way to teach Andrew a lesson. RedZebra 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not trying to "teach a lesson." As I said, I share the concerns above -- that little comment of the editor was just "the straw that broke the camel's back," and made me decide to oppose. Xoloz 17:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    I actually did know that it's bureaucrats and not admins who make the promotion decision. A mistype, is all. If you have serious doubts about my ability to handle admin tasks, I will be happy to answer as many questions as needed in order to make sure your concerns are addressed. Andrew Levine 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Tony Sidaway 02:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Concerns about his lack of experience.
  15. Oppose per SlimVirgin Bastique▼parler voir 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Jrcog@Insert something here 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I believe that interaction through user talk pages is critical to an admin and while I'm inclined towards the argument that project pages (etc) represent community interaction, I believe that there is a qualitative difference. Will be happy to support (drop a note on my talk page) next Rfa if this one fails if this is addressed, esp. if with evidence of tackling vandalism. If Rfa succeeds, happy to wish you the very best of luck! --Dweller 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Very funny. Quill E. Coyote 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    User's 19th edit. First edit was 5 days ago. Kimchi.sg 03:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral - though a great contributor, he does not meet my criteria of 300 combined edits in Talk/User talk namespaces. Kalani [talk] 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral: He's got a really cool signature and a substantial edit count, but...very weak user interaction, page discussion and summary usage a future admin maketh not. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral I'm kind of torn about this one - I don't think the user has much community involvement, which is key when it comes to being an administrator. His work in the encyclopedia of course it very helpful, but I'm not sure if there's enough evidence that he would use the tools properly - it seems like the majority of his edits in the Wikipedia namespace are concerning featured article candidates, but he is uninvolved in janitorial processes, such as deletion discussions. Cowman109Talk 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    After a reply by Andrew Levine, I acknowledge now that he has indeed been involved in AFD discussions, but I still feel that he hasn't had too much community involvement that would confirm that he can handle tense discussions with users, for example. I would support in a month or two given more community involvement (in terms of communication). Cowman109Talk 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to support. Cowman109Talk 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    Only 3500 edits since 2003 with "no long breaks" is a concern for me, but I don't have any reason to assume he would be untrustworthy, and he's become more active during (perhaps because of) this RfA. -- Steel 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    Since this is a close RfA (Hovering between the 75-80% range), I've decided to commit myself to a particular side of the fence. Changed to support. -- Steel 15:33, 15 August 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.