Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul

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

[edit] Biruitorul

Final (38/15/8) Ended 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Biruitorul (talk · contribs) – Biruitorul and I have about 2.7 languages in common, but have diametrically opposite politics. I'm a New York Jewish red-diaper-baby leftist whose guitar-playing father (due to the vagaries of New York ethnic politics) sang "Kevin Barry" with gusto; he may be the only Ulster Unionist Romanian monarchist in captivity. I have observed him to be one of the English-language Wikipedia's most excellent, erudite, even-handed, unbiased contributors; the only reason I even know his politics is from the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, where political discussion is freewheeling. Of the many good contributors who have joined in the last year, I cannot imagine that any would be better qualified to be an administrator. Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 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: I'd be most interested in WP:RCP, both fighting recent changes by vandals but especially in speedy-deleting nonsense pages. I would also like to close AfD disputes and help resolve NPOV problems. I plan to monitor the Administrators' noticeboard and help deal with WP:RM requests. More generally, I plan to be helpful wherever called on, both by other administrators to deal with backlog or by any user in trying to solve a problem, but the above would be my specialties. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Q: What is your definition of "nonsense page"? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   A: I don't have a hard and fast definition, but in general I know them when I see them. They're typically created by very new editors without user pages, are under 500 bytes in size, employ poor grammar and punctuation, etc. I'll give two recent examples. One was a page called "Nunn the gun" and read "Nunn The Gun, is a young influential musician. And a champion." Another was a page called "Jerry Tarkanian Court" and read "Named after the longtime head coach Jerry Tarkanian." That's the sort of thing I'm very eager to delete practically on sight. Biruitorul 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   A: Well, I've listed my articles here and I suppose most of them are all right, but I especially like the ones in bold, plus these two. I'm also somewhat of a templates man, with my creations (mainly drawn from other language editions) ranging from this one to this one to this one. There are also certain pages I like to keep clean of recurring vandalism, like these two. I'm pleased with these particular contributions because I think they've helped make the encyclopedia a better one and because they've demonstrated the wiki process in action, often undergoing substantial improvement since I first submitted them. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 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've been in debates and discussions over content, but they've never gotten heated. Some of the more excited debates you can follow here and here. Most of the time I've resolved matters through persistent discussion, sometimes calling on other editors who support my position. I plan to continue doing the same; I will not be trigger-happy when it comes to blocking and will not abuse my powers to push my own version. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   The links in your answer to question 3 don't work for me. I mean they don't function, not that I take issue with them. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry. Fixed. Biruitorul 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your opinion about letting banned users to be involved in discussions in wikipedia? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   A It depends on the particulars of the case, but in general, a ban is a rather serious matter, so the user shouldn't be participating here until and unless the ban is lifted. Biruitorul 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Q: What particulars make it permissible to be engaged in discussions with banned user? (When answering this question please keep in mind that bans are not given lightly, are always preceded by other means of conflict resolution and lengthy litigation) `'mikkanarxi 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   A: Let me give a concrete example. As I understand it, User:Anittas was banned for reasons that don't have to do with his credibility. If Anittas wanted to contribute an idea to an article, I would engage in discussion with him through e-mail and weigh what he had to say, possibly making use of his ideas. However, all discussion would be kept off talk pages. If a sockpuppet of a banned user wrote on my talk page I would delete that discussion and direct him to use e-mail. But Anittas' case is fairly special (see, for instance, Jmabel's post here); since most banned users are trolls with nothing valuable to contribute, my default would be to ignore them. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

5. When faced with vandals or edit disputes, do you favor a hard-line, "zero-tolerance" approach or negotiation and discourse? Do you believe in punishment or rehabiliation? What is your user rights policy in regards to admin action and how will you ensure that there are checks and balances in the process and accountability for your own actions? Ronline ✉ 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   A To some extent, it depends on the nature of the vandalism. If we're talking about someone blanking pages or writing "hkjsgdfskfsk" in random spots, I would give the usual series of warnings before blocking, etc. Edit disputes are quite another matter. My own credo is dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue. I believe that the more debate we have, the better the results will be, so I will try to keep engaging with parties to a dispute for as long as is feasible. I believe that, within reason, rehabilitation should be the focus. For instance, if someone has shown that he has good ideas but also has a habit of making intemperate, abusive remarks, we should first try to get him to understand that those are unacceptable; only if he fails to grasp that within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week) would I support punitive action (unless the insults were truly egregious, in which case more forceful punishment would be appropriate). I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "user rights policy". As for accountability, to some extent it's a matter of trust with admins (though of course they too can be disciplined) but I think I've shown myself to be a rather conciliatory type and a good listener, so if my actions aroused opposition I would certainly take all complaints into account and pursue appropriate measures to ensure the best outcome for all involved parties. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Diez2 (talk · contribs):

Q. How long have you been active in editing Wikipedia? Diez2 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A. Roughly three years; nearly seven months as a registered user. Biruitorul 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Q: Sample proof, please. `'mikkanarxi 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A: This and this was me, for instance. Is that what you were looking for? Biruitorul 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Biruitorul's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I would appreciate your support. I won't make any grandiose promises but I do intend to keep those I've made to the best of my ability. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest for Biruitorul to write edit comments for non-minor edits. `'mikkanarxi 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• And major edits aswell. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Normally, I'd agree with the edit summary issue. Biruitorul's edits, though, have been so uniformly good that I've come to view just his name as 99% assurance that it will be a good edit. There are all of about a dozen editors I could say that about to a comparable degree in 3+ years working here. - Jmabel | Talk 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• It appears that some people find my nomination comments off topic. Odd. I would think that a nomination coming from someone who is not of the same mind as the nominee on political matters would carry some weight: most of the complaints I've heard about administrators have been that they fail to be evenhanded politically. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I really don't see anything untoward in the nominator placing a notice of this candidacy on a board, particularly so when there's no solicitation/encouragement of votes in favour (or against). I think it's not that uncommon a practice. Also agree with Jmabel's point above.--cjllw | TALK 07:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) - Pleased to be the first to vote for this worthy candidate.
2. Hear, hear. As stated before, although he and I disagree on almost everything political, I am yet to see as neutral an editor as Biruitorul. Dahn 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. In my experience Biruitorul is a friendly and knowledgeable editor. Appleseed (Talk) 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. --Mihai -^talk 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, the mainspace edits make up for everthing else for me. But you really need to get those edit summerys up and also the wikispace.__Seadog ^♪ 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Has the experience; is a helpful, reasonable and knowledgeable contributor; does not edit-war or allow his own views to intrude into articles. I don't need to see dozens of "delete per noms" from this candidate to accept that he's able to grasp the principles of XfDs and admin-worthy behaviour. Edit summaries are a nice-to-have (there are plenty of established admins out there using these sparingly anyways), which could presumably be improved. I don't see the downside in making Biruitorul an admin, the reverse in fact.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support no negative stands out, and I don't mind if the nominee for focusing on building articles.-- danntm ^T _C 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Good and helpful user overall, qualified enough to become an adminstrator. Hello32020 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support We need more admins like Biruitorul who have experience in writing articles and getting into the trenches. The fact that this user has not been involved in "WikiPolitics" is a strong plus, not a minus. Instead of playing virtual cops and robbers in the Wikispaces, this editor has put in hard work to create articles and improve articles with information not readily available in the paper encyclopedias. That's been the purpose of Wikipedia, but I feel that many entrenched Wikipedians have forgotten this. Rather, they just get into a tizzy whenever a Stephen Colbert comes up with a term called Wikiality. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I met Biruitorul when he first came here, and I've seen nothing but good things since. He's proven himself to be a very neutral editor, plus I liked his answer to mikka's question. Khoikhoi 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. - Andrei 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. With more than 13000 edits, he deserve to be an admin.--MariusM 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. NPOV, meticulous article improvements, modest, friendly and approachable, and, to comment on what I see is writen below by opposants, I would also add experience. Greier 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. For the edit count, number of high-quality articles, a.s.o. Givig him responsibilities will also help moderate his political views. Dpotop 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Weak Support. I'd like to address some of the points raised by those who have opposed you or have voted neutral. For one, I think that your work with Wikipedia so far has been grand. You've got all the signs of a good Wikipedian who would make a good moderator. There are some things, however, you are lacking in. As Nishkid pointed out, you have a lack of edit summary usage (something so minor keeping you from becoming an Admin!). Another thing pointed out was the fact that, although you are a great contributor to Wikipedia, you really don't need the tools. You're working well right now. Becoming an admin isn't everything. In fact, many admins eventually retire and give up the mop because they become too preoccupied with putting out fires, handling the vandals, and deciding policy. If you truely want to become an Admin, that's fine. However, you can still contribute above and beyond (look at User:Werdna, who is highly respected Wikipedian who isn't and chooses not to be an Admin) what is expected of the average Wikipedian without the admin tools. Sharkface217 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I have yet to see an oppose vote that lists a legitimate reason for opposing him. He has always been productive. KazakhPol 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The fact that this user spent most of his time building excellent articles rather performing petty bureaucratic tasks should not go against him. TSO1D 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong support – despite his often-controversial talk page opinions, Biruitorul is a very neutral and professional main namespace editor. In particular, I believe his answer to question 5 above embodies the values all admins should have, particularly an emphasis on dialogue and co-operation. Even though some people have opposed his candidature because he "hasn't warned enough vandals yet", I don't think this should impact at all on his status as an admin. Giving admin status to someone costs nothing, but can bring about a lot of benefits for the project, and I think that with admin powers, Biruitorul can be become an even better contributor. I look forward to having you on the admin team :) Ronline ✉ 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I am not aware of any contributor who has improved his performance after obtaining admin tools. As has been demonstrated in previous discussions, it rather works the other way. There have never been contributors superior to Wetman, Giano, or Halibutt, who are all non-admins. Furthermore, I am alarmed that most supporters of Biruitorul are Romanians. More neutral opinions are appreciated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    58% of my current supporters are not Romanian, so it is factually incorrect that "most" of my supporters are Romanians. Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that Romanians can't be objective about each other. Biruitorul 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    To ghirla: Nothing strange that many suporters are Romanians: these are probably most common people he comes across in editing. To biru: The issue is not objectivity: it is only hatural that you are supposed to have less conflicts with Romanians than, say, with Turks, if you were to edit the Ottoman Empire topics. Therefore the desire to see more opinions outside the circle of most probable buddies is only natural. `'mikkanarxi 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

19. Support Very polite, very neutral, very trustworthy, very good editor, very nitpicky opposition. The man is sure to make a great admin. [bashing of other wikipedians removed]. That "bashing" comment would be: "Too bad the opposers can't assess the value of this nomination by someone with fundamentally different POV." (meaning the nominator Jmabel, as he explicitly states in his nomination comment). I find its removal and the addition of the bracketed text abusive. I stand by every word in my comment. NikoSilver 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support based on edit count and lack of incivility in talk pages Would recommend being careful about not blocking for newbie errors and going slow with closing to delete until you have more experience judging consensus. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. I've collaborated and interacted with Biruitorul on several occasions and I've come to known him as a neutral and careful Wikipedian who respects the others' opinion. He would definitely be a good admin. Todor→Bozhinov 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support This users ideas for problem solving is great let him be a admin. Cocoaguy (Talk) 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A thoroughly rational, level-headed editor. I cannot see how giving him the buttons would harm the project in any way, and it would undoubtedly benefit it.--Taxwoman 13:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. This user's contributions in the mainspace will make an excellent admin willing to discuss issues rather than just block for them. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support I doubt he'd abuse the tools.--Euthymios 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
27. good luck :) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - to those that are critical of the number of wikispace edits, please keep in mind that we're here first of all we're here to right an encyclopedia; users to become admins should be first of all good mainspace editors, and Biruitorul is a fantastic editor. I may be a wrong, but I've had the feeling that some admins tend with adminship to neglect what should remain their main work, writing sourced articles; with this editor I know this will not happen.--Aldux 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, high level of experience, nothing in record suggests a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Just like Dahn, I disagree with most of Biruitorul's political views, but I see him as a very valuable Wikipedian. We Hungarians often can get into wars with editors from neighboring countries, but I don't remember any of us getting into a conflict with Biru, he is one of the nicest Romanians I met here. – Alensha ^talk 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - neutral and a person that give help when needed.--Roamataa 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support - Seems unlikely to abuse the tools. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support.--Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Nominee has been much-scolded for lack of edit summaries, lack of participation in wikiprojects, etc. All of these are extremely valid concerns, and (significantly) would be fatal flaws 95 times out of 100. IMO, this is the one of the 5% of cases that I would trust the nominee with the tools, and to improve in the aforementioned offending areas. Trust trumps readily correctable flaws, in rare cases. --Ling.Nut 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support out of following reasons:

    • he is a good editor
    • he cares more to create content than to exert power
    • he expressed very strong commitment to dialogue
    • he is ready to contact anybody who can help the project, including banned users
    • he appears to favour mutual respect and cooperation rather than authority, coercion and confrontation
    • there is little risk with this candidate to become just another mediocre, hyperactive and latently abusive admin; it is much more likely that he will use admin tools with moderation and responsibility --Vintila Barbu 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

36. Strong Support This is someone that I respect, and will be an enormous asset to all good people, he's both creative and modest. Modernist 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Looks good to me. Puppy Mill 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Serhio

    Cast by IP address [1]. Redux 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

38. Support. Changed to support. I have seen less deserving candidates promoted last week. Adminship is no big deal, says Jimbo. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We don't "fight" changes. ... aa:talk 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yes we do. We also read carefully what other people write (in this case, what exactly candidates write or mean to write). If we don't understand something, we ask questions first, then vote. And again, we do fight vandalism. `'mikkanarxi 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I would like to support this user, but I'm not so sure due to the lack of edit summary usage and the lack of participation in AfD's. Nishkid64 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Reluctant Oppose Excellent mainspace contributions, however low use of project and project/user talk spaces as well as very low edit summary usages concern me. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - crz crztalk 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sorry, I must oppose as well. You appear to be an excellent editor, but your Wikipedia space count is just too low, your edit summary usage is far below the least acceptable, and I see no recent countervandalism or participation in AFD (which doesn't really look good for someone who's willing to perform administrative tasks in those areas).--Húsönd 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose partly per Nishkid, Crazy and Husond and partly because I can't really see a need for admin tools. Most of the "specialty" jobs you say you'd like to be able to do in question one can be done without adminship, eg, helping resolving NPOV issues, RCP, closing (some) XfDs, helping out on AN, ANI and RM. These jobs really don't require the tools and many, many editors are doing them now without the mop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose. I don't care how credible you think a banned user might be, no one should be acting as proxies for editors who are under bans. The policy is completely unambiguous on this issue: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I would think that the policy was unambiguous: "at the direction of" does not mean "after consultation with". If I have misinterpreted, I would (honestly) welcome an RFC or even a request that I be de-sysop'd on this ground, since I am in communication with at least two banned users and pass along messages when I think they are useful or on the mark. I don't intend to stop doing this, so if the community consensus is, indeed, that it should rule out someone being a sysop, then I no longer have that consensus, and I've long said that I (or anyone else) should be in this role only by clear consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I concur, and I happen to know 3 other admins who would also 'hand over their badges' over this misinterpretation of policy. NikoSilver 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. You need to warn vandals, and you definitely need to use more edit summaries. Your article contributions are great, but writing articles is irrelevant to admin tools, as they do not help you with article writing in any way. You don't seem to have much participation in other things, thus, I don't see that you have need of admin tools. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, lacks of edits in several namespaces. Please warn vandals as much as possible, unless someone warned before you can. Don't be discouraged as you can still be a good editor without becoming an admin. If you want to, participate in xFDs etc. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose He's my brother (really) and, seeing that this would be really bad for him, it's my duty to oppose.

   Struck, unregistered users are not permitted to comment in the Support, Oppose, or Neutral sections. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Crz, who has been reading my mind lately. Xoloz 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, despite the (unintentionally?) romantic nomination from Jmabel. Needs to learn that we do warn vandals. Proto::type 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak Oppose The level of wiki-space edits, talk pages (particularly vandal warnings) participation and edit summaries gets to me aswell as the decided lack of XfD discussion. Seeing as these are the areas of contribution this user will participate in as an admin, I think more experience in those areas is neccessary. The 12 000 mainspace edits is very good though. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose He doesn't need admin tools to keep up the good work...(history shows that adminship is quite detrimental for Romanians) Anonimu 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Are you serious? Have you studied the effect of adminship on various nationalities? SuperMachine 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    I've just observed its effect on the very few Romanians that became admins (because I'm a Romanian myself, not because i'm a racist). Anyway, i think it's better than supporting someone's adminship just because he adds useful information to articles. Anonimu 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    Oh vey, a racist schmuck on Wikipaedia! WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

14. Opppose. I respect JMabel's opinions, but I'm concerned about not enough project space experience. Come back in a couple of months. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Opppose Wants to close AfD's but has two or three AfD contributions since October, 13 total? ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You look like a really good editor and I can't see any problems with your encyclopedic contributions. I do see less than ten XfD discussion contributions and no vandal warnings from a random sample of your user Talk page edits, latest to earliest. I would feel confident in supporting you with more of the above in evidence. A minor point, do you have edit summaries forced on your preferences? If you don't then I think that this would be a good idea. If you do, then the gaps are probably where you have used the '+' link to add comments. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral But on an aside, I think you're airing some family's dirty laundry in one of your answers. If this is corrected, I'd be inclined to support because I value mainspace editing, and especially article writing, over participating in WikiBureaucracy. I think our admins should be in the trenches writing articles before they can oversee the writing of articles. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I don't want to pile on opposes, so I'll just remain neutral. Although this user has many useful edits, the extreme lack of edit summaries is worth noting, as is the lack of Wikispace talk eits. NauticaShades 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. I know this guy for some very minor, pedantic edits he makes to DYK pages. Since they are not accompanied by edit summaries, I have to check the page each time, which is sort of time-consuming. Reading the nomination, I hoped to learn why he would be helpful as an admin. Instead, I learned a lot about his and Jmabel's policial leanings. I don't care about political views of our admins and don't think that one's interest in politics is a sufficient reason to entrust him or her with tools. Sorry. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. You're a great contributor, but do you really need the tools? If you're dead set on becoming an admin, I'd recommend you get involved more in admin-related tasks and come back in a couple of months. I'll gladly support you then. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - not enough experience, but looks good. I see no reason why I wouldn't support in 3 months --T-rex 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral not comfortable with the amount of experience in project space. Also, this advertisement of this RfA by the nominator is a bit of a negative. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral no strong need for tools. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral per Sarah Ewart. riana_dzasta 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Crzrussian. Try XfD for a start. Come back in a few months and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 21:00, 2 December 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.