Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Earle Martin

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] Earle Martin

Final (24/32/12) Ended Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:05:32 UTC

Earle Martin (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. In the spirit of IAR, I don't intend to jump through a large number of bureaucratic hoops for the RfA process, which, like various other processes here, has ballooned beyond the bounds of reasonability. Instead, I'm going to run on the not insane ticket. (Candidate motto: "Nothing Batshit, Guaranteed".)

I've been around this project, on and off, since 2002, but have largely been taking an interest in editing since the beginning of this year. I help keep things tidy, follow guidelines and community style, add snippets of info here and there, and occasionally even create articles. Sometimes I pick things to do or fix and do or fix them. I'm a normal, steady, competent editor, both here and in other places (I work in the OpenGuides project, and I'm an admin on the WikiWikiWeb - yes, that WikiWikiWeb, although it's a completely different kettle of fish, and I wouldn't expect that fact to bear any relevance apart from that I spend time on wiki maintenance of various kinds.) Why do I want to be an admin? It will help me do what I already do. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't expect to answer questions here, starting with the ones below, because I believe my record stands for itself. However, if you really want to ask questions, do it personally. Email me, give me a phone call - my contact details are easily obtainable online (this is my real name). I'm also always connected to #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net. If you're in London, I'd be happy for you to interrogate me over a cup of coffee.

That's it.

Earle Martin [t/c] 14:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[answers redacted]

After reading some of the comments below, I actually cracked late at night and answered the questions. But, as Kicking222 says, they were half-assed answers... which only seemed right for half-assed questions. I'm going to stick to my original intentions, guys. Seriously, if you're voting neutral based on my not answering the questions, you're missing the point. I reject the concept of the questions. It feels to me like a violation of the wiki principle. We have more than enough ways to cope with someone going batshit with the tools; so what makes having the tools such a big deal? And why should having some huge number of edits be a prerequisite? Quality, not quantity, is what counts on a project like this. I'd hand out tool access without blinking to anyone who seems to spend their time making reasonable edits.

If you don't like me not answering the questions, vote negative. Otherwise, look at what I've been doing as an editor, and consider whether you think I would actually damage the project by extending my capabilities. I don't think I would, and that's what this nomination is all about.

In addition, several people have said that I'm not taking this seriously. You're right. I have to wonder what you're expecting from me. This is a vote for some additional editing capabilities on a free encyclopedia project, not the presidency of a nation. Nor does it rank with my family or my job, both things I do take more seriously. Lighten up, quit the lawyer games and get back to editing the articles! (Another campaign slogan.)

"Matters of great concern should be taken lightly. Matters of small concern should be taken seriously." -- Hagakure

-- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

General comments
  • See Earle Martin's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • User is long term active, since 2003, though edit rate is < 1/day. Little involvement in WP, aside from RfC/RfAr. I'd rather wait a little on this one, no current use for tools demonstrated.Voice-of-All 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "no current use for tools demonstrated" - when I don't have a saw I don't try to cut down trees. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Note that "WP:PP" was a typo, I just mean "WP:", as in Wikipedia: and related.Voice-of-All 23:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, User:Subversive element (previously User:Tit for Tat) has urged no less than 10 editors to vote for this person ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ). Seven of these have taken an anti-circumcision stance, and one self-identifies as a white supremacist. I don't know what to make of this, but it should probably be known. Jakew 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be known that WP:NPA explicitly rules out "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Subversive 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been an update to link #8 User_talk:Mitsos#Earle_Martin_RfA. In the words of user:Subversive element "I'm posting on sensible people's talk pages all over" ... "There's an actual wikiwar going on and we must not lose sight of who the true enemy is". I agree with Jakew. The NPA accusation is groundless. Haber 15:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not groundless. (This is really not the place for it, but it's important to know Haber and I have a "history". Subversive 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you two mind taking it somewhere else? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • There are enough opposes already. But I just want to ask (though you said you won't answer any questions here...), how can we, most of whom do not know you, trust you when you won't even tell us what you will use the tools for and say that you won't even answer our questions?--Konst.able 12:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the WikiWiki principle is, effectively, innocent until proven guilty. That's why anyone can edit this site. This is my entire campaign plank: if you believe in that principle, vote for me. If I abuse the tools, I get banned, just like anybody else. If I don't, then you have another trustworthy admin to work with. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that's not a realistic view. If you turn out to be a bad admin, you end up causing a lot of damage before there's a chance you'll get de-sysoped. If de-sysopings were so easy, it might be another thing. Lurk a bit more at AN and AN/I, and you'll see what I mean. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support — Straight and to the point, i frakking like you ! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support I guess your nom says it all... who needs questions? --Alex (Talk) 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Support per Alex. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Oppose
  3. Enthusiastic Support he's been around for four years and if he doesn't want to engage an RfA the way it normally is, then it's not really a big deal to me. If anything, it's a nice change of pace, and he's obviously demonstrated he's to be trusted given his extensive experience here hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. I approve of Earle. I have put him to the question and not found him wanting. DrHydeous 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Sure, why not? I like the attitude. --Kbdank71 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Am not familiar with his contributions on Wikipedia; however he is a steward on WikiWikiWeb and has served in that role with distinction, dealing with some rather agressive pests on a wiki nowhere near as technologically sophisticated as this one. --EngineerScotty 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support The crazy man! You remind me of me. I like you. I would like to see an admin with a good, straightforward attitude. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 06:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support active since 2003 => meets my criteria.  Grue  07:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Sympathetic Support technically meets my criteria, I just feel sorry you did not fully recognize the norms of RfA.-- danntm T C 19:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Love the extreme devotion to "adminship=no big deal". I actually think that it will be a good thing for the RFA process and the project if you get voted in, it's just too bad you won't. Borisblue 22:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. El_C 23:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Moral support based on the precepts of Laozi —

    Wise men don't need to prove their point;
    men who need to prove their point aren't wise.
    ...
    The Tao nourishes by not forcing.
    By not dominating, the Master leads. quote of Laozi

    Enjoyed your nomination but doubt it will carry the day - Williamborg (Bill)
  13. 2002, like the sense of humor, we need more admins like him Jaranda wat's sup 02:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support meets all my needs Jeffklib 07:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support WP needs diversity on its admin level Subversive 10:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support I like this guy; he has a good attitude. He doesn't have to be the most active admin to be helpful. There are too many admin-criteria arms-races already. Opabinia regalis 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support an admin not cut from the same cloth as all the others? UNPOSSIBLE :D Too much group think in the adminship, I like someone who doesn't conform to groupthink Lordkazan 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support some of what is written in oppose might be valid, but as said before "Adminship is no big deal." but i have to confess ultimatetively his "If you don't like me not answering the questions, vote negative." did it for me. Great attitude.-- ExpImptalkcon 13:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. SupportHis work looks good and he's been honest.TipPt 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support Mitsos 12:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Conditional Support If related to Kelly Martin somehow. Anomo 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support for his refusal to answer the RfA questions. That stuff has gotten completely out of hand, with every Joe Schmo on Wikipedia dropping their own pre-fab question (or two, or three) into the discussions. This is supposed to be a review of his previous work and suitability as an administrator, not a little circus for everyone's amusement. Kafziel Talk 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. The questions really are getting out of hand. Further, I like his "nothing batshit" campaign pledge. ergot 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Reassuringly doesn't take it too seriously. Contribution speaks for itself, shouldn't have to go through intense self-important questioning. Dw290 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm sorry but I must object. Earle has not been a very active editor, making only a handful of edits per day since 2006. More importantly, other than joining a few deletion debates, he has not shown experience with any wikiprocess. >Radiant< 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I am cynical towards the value of many of the processes here, and prefer to get on with actually editing. But hey, I voted in the board election, if you really care that much. (By the way - unrelated to your comment - I'd like to make it an additional campaign point that I refuse to prefix "wiki" to words, because I think it is silly. Vote for Plain English in 2006.) -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I wikicare that you have wikifamiliarity with such things as the featuring, deletion, renaming or copyvio processes (not necessarily all of them, of wikicourse), because wikiadmins are to a certain extent wikicaretakers of those processes. >Radiant< 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Radiant! do remember WP:POINT. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Since when is punning disruptive? >Radiant< 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I think you were overusing the prefix "wiki" unnecessarily, and it was disruptive - and nothing to do with this RfA. --Alex (Talk) 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
              • For disruption to have occurred, something must have actually been disrupted. Causing minor annoyance to others is not disruption; WP:POINT is and should be about abuse of process, not snide wikiremarks.  :) --EngineerScotty 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Just participating in this wiki...:) --Bhadani 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Radiant and the candidate's decision not to answer the questions Cynical 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Lack of contributions, and self-nom smacks a bit too much of this :-) ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You compare my nomination to the election platform of someone who chooses to call his electorate "bitches". That doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess I was just ignoring all rules there. No, I think you're not nearly taking this seriously enough to warrant serious consideration, 's all. ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Too few contributions and no answers to questions. Michael 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The edit count is nowhere near high enough; particularly only 28 user talk edits is a worry, as we can't really judge how you interact with other users. I'm also worried about a cavalier attitude as the questions have been completely ignored. Moreschi 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. He's been here for a while, but that doesn't necessarily translate into knowledge and experience. Only 790 edits, of which 28 were made in the user talk space. As TaE already said, I don't think you're taking this RfA seriously. Nishkid64 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. per above. What prompted me to get off the sidelines was the seeming lack of understanding of the need for answers to the standard questions and those answers' vagueness.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Suggest user withdraw, accept oppose comments as the constructive criticism they are, and work on self-improvement. User needs much more expereince not only editing this wiki but in admin related tasks on it. Normally I support for trans-wiki experience, but this user's answers and demeanor have persuaded me that (s)he needs to gain more experience, get a thicker skin, and work on the people skills before trying agian. It is good to respond to oppose votes to clarify the debate and to clear up misunderstandings. This user's responses only seem to deepen the hole.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I can't see a justification for granting adminship to someone with only about 750 edits, and who did not answer the RfA questions until several hours after posting a self-nom. The user seems to be a good editor and his experience as a steward on WikiWikiWeb is valuable, but right now I don't think we can treat him as a serious candidate for Wikipedia adminship. More experience is needed here first. And fundamentally I don't believe that expecting prospective admin candidates to take the RfA process seriously is going "beyond the bounds of reasonability". Zaxem 00:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose due to the arrogance displayed in this RfA. To quote the candidate, he should "Lighten up, quit the lawyer games and get back to editing the articles!" Gwernol 03:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If it wasn't for the pathological process addicts on this site, I'd be able to. Only, you're the ones forcing me to play lawyer games in order to get on with my job more efficiently. Nice logic there. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I expect a different attitude and more involvement from an admin. Delta Tango | Talk 03:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Change to oppose Didn't realize the low edit count. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, needs to do more admin work. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose The combination of no specific reason given for wanting admin powers and a self-nom makes me very nervous, especially from someone who completely ignored the standard policy of RfA. -FunnyMan 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Unfortunate Oppose due to low participation over a 3½ year stay. Good luck in another 6-8 months. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Relatively low number of edits and user's apparent feeling of being above the process. Not the attitude I want in an admin. I suggest answering some questions. AuburnPilot 01:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Per above. You seem to be a bit uncivil on this page. Adminship is no big deal, however adminship is not nothing at all. T REXspeak 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Absolute oppose. Incivility of the magnitude demonstrated by this user would ordinarily be enough for me to oppose, but without a reasonably large body of work here and some explanation of exactly how adminship would help with this user's current involvement, I cannot understand how this user's adminship will be of benefit to the project. More importantly, though, this user's painting of well-reasoned expectations (namely, that candidates at RfA demonstrate a genuine need for the tools) as "lawyer games", refusal to demonstrate suitability for the role, and obvious contempt for Wikipedia process give me every reason to believe that the candidate would abuse the tools. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 11:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose based on my perception of lack of commitment, lack of community participation, and disregard for process (beyond the point I'd consider healthy). --MCB 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. I find the attitude that questions from other editors are somehow less important to answer if they come on-wiki to be a very poor leading indicator. If this is your attitude towards your fellow editors for simply asking questions I fear what it will be once you have even more buttons. Maybe that's not how you intended it to be taken, but that's how it has come across. Nandesuka 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Per Nandesuka. Jakew 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Incivility, lack of experience, and a lack of respect for fellow editors all leave me very uncomfortable with this RfA. -- Avi 13:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Inexperience, contempt for process, incivility. Haber 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Adminship is no big deal: It's no big deal if this user doesn't get the admin tools. Considering the level of activity, admin actions won't be much anyway if history is any indication. I wouldn't even have supported myself at this level. If this user had more experience and ran on these identical terms, that'd be one thing. -- RM 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. WikiOppose per Radiant. Not answering questions might be okay if there was greater participation generally. --Interiot 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. This cavalier attitude would probably fly if the nom had all the requisite experience that displayed a clear need for the tools; unfortunately, a meagre rate of participation precludes such an approach to an RFA (as far as I am concerned). The low-level incivility throughout this RFA (particularly the dismissive tone of the nom) would not lend itself well to someone in the role of an admin. Also has not displayed any need for the tools... and fails my criteria. Themindset 18:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per above. Sorry, but you don't seem to have enough experience right now, and the history of incivility doesn't help, either. Work on becoming familiar with various processes and become familiar with WP:CIV, and maybe I'll support a future RfA. --Coredesat 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose, per Daveydweeb and Nandesuka. The overall contempt shown to other editors in this RfA alone leaves an unpleasant impression. If you are granted sysop status, you'll have to field questions and criticism from new users, and it won't always be pleasant. But to answer your question in your comment above: What are we looking for? We are looking for someone who can become one of the public faces of a Top-20 website, and become a role model, in some ways, not only an editor or janitor or whatever; we're also looking for someone who doesn't leave us uneasy wondering if he/she'll go bonkers and make a mess, because it takes a while to undo those messes and distracts others from actually editing the encyclopedia. Titoxd(?!?) 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per Dlohcierekim and because of history of incivility --Hattusili 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Refusal to answer questions on this RfA only foreshadows your refusal to answer questions regarding any actions taken as an admin. Your attitude, which I interpret as condescending and contemptuous, does not sit well at all. I take issue out of your responses to Gwernol's and Radiant!'s oppose and Chacor's neutral, which I find your snappy remarks not funny at all, if not insulting. Swallow your pride, bear the constructive criticism, and answer the questions, for what you experience here is only a taste of what one will face as an admin. An RfA is not a place to show off credentials you do not possess. --210physicq (c) 00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose as per the above. You haven't told us why you want to have and use the tools of adminship, and they are the only real reason to be an admin in the first place. Badbilltucker 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose It is simple.You don't answer the questions, you don't have my support
  32. Oppose. As said above, candidate is condescending and contemptuous, rude and snippy and plainly in that class of admin who would immediately set out causing grief and bloodshed. Such things are a big deal. Would recommend not returning to RfA in future. -Splash - tk 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral until questions answered, candidate hasn't pointed out any specific admin chors in self-nom.--Andeh 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Bold enough to run like this, but does it mean you'll be overly bold with the tools, too? – Chacor 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No. Hope this helps. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Unbelievable, I have a hard time believing that someone can be this arrogant in their own RfA. Themindset 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Weak Support. I would, however, really have liked to see Q1 answered in the spirit of things. On the other hand, I trust him as an admin and think this is a pretty reasonable application of IAR. --Storkk 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral per 390 mainspace edits. Though I'm not a fan of editcountitis, that number is really low, especially considering a lot are gnome-type activities, judging by a quick perusal. --Storkk 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia needs gnomes. I would happily vote for anyone who has a record of gnoming. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but 390 mainspace edits isn't really evidence of gnoming. I am really looking for something like 3000 - 4000. --Storkk 15:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Lack of answers to questions makes it difficult to assess your knowledge of the policies and guidelines that underpin the project; less than 100 XfD discussions participated in and less than 50 user Talk contributions suggests that Earle Martin requires more time to contribute before attempting another RfA. (aeropagitica) 17:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've read all of the administrators' reading list. The policies and guidelines are trivial; every single one, more or less, is entirely subsidiary to common sense. On your second point, I would note that I'm not that interested in deleting stuff, as I prefer contributing positively. So tallying my XfD activities is never going to add up to much. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, Not so active contributor. Shyam (T/C) 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Lack of answers to questions is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral: Hasn't provided enough shrubberies. --Carnildo 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I am unfortunately allergic to shrubberies. Make of that what you will. -- Earle Martin
    The candidate says above that "when I don't have a saw, I don't try to cut down trees" - so how is he going to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring? Newyorkbrad 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't find Monty Python references funny, either. Please rephrase in English. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    The "shrubberies" comment was itself a Python reference to which I assumed you were responding in kind, so I was following up with a quote from the same scene. Never mind. Newyorkbrad 15:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral  Doctor Bruno  01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I love your self-nom, Earle. I truly, honestly do. I really want to support you, but I can't find a good reason. So you don't want to answer the questions? I'm cool with that. But aside from rarely contributing and not participating in XfDs, I liked your nom considerably more when you just didn't answer the questions than when you gave half-assed answers. Best of luck, and if I'm ever in London (which I would love- I've never been to Europe, and London is at the top of the list), I'll look you up for some tea (I don't drink coffee). -- Kicking222 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral The nom is the most refreshing thing I've seen round here in a long time, but... well, as per Kicking222 basically. --kingboyk 10:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weakish support Neutral - Eh, I like ya. I don't know which way this RfA is going to turn, but looking over your contribs tells me you'd do alright with the tools and wouldn't abuse them. It'll be good for us if you get the mop, but it'll be "no big deal" if you don't get them, right? :) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 05:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Correct! Nice to see that somebody gets it. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    but it'll be "no big deal" if you don't get them, right? :) you have a point there.-- ExpImptalkcon 13:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    RfA is no big deal, but it should not be a big deal to justify one's request for the tools to the community. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Apologies if my !vote seemed flippant, Dlohcierekim. I agree with your sentiments - that's why I'm all the way down here in the 'neutral' column. riana_dzasta 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral Meh, candidate needs to check his attitude at the door, especially when requesting community trust and support, but no point in opposing at this stage. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:20, 19 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.