Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EclipseSSD

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.

Contents

[edit] EclipseSSD

Final (21/32/12); ended 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

EclipseSSD (talk · contribs) - Active editor since June 2007 EclipseSSD (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I am the one known as EclipseSSD. I have been editing Wikipedia since early 2007, but I officially created my account on June 23. My main work here on Wikipedia, has involved media projects such as film, television and video games. I spend most of my time on Wikipedia watching over film and video game articles, to keep Wikipedia up to date with those, while maintaining the essence of an encyclopedia. I do know, however, that I still have a lot to learn and contribute a bit more on Wikipedia, which is why I will understand if I am not successful in my first nomination, so I can improve over time, and hopefully be successful the second time round. I do not intend to abuse the administrative tools, because I believe in giving everybody a second chance, and I will only very reluctantly use the block tools because I do not wish to cause anybody any misery. I know I've made a few mistakes on Wikipedia, (such as the ban tools statement below here), and I would like to take this time to apologize to anybody who has been annoyed or frustrated with me or my mistakes, so I can learn from them. I would also personally thank anybody participating in this nomination, even those who oppose, so I know where my strengths and weaknesses are. Thank you all for this opportunity, and thanks for listening.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator, I will continue to work with the tools in my main areas of editing, the media (films, video games, etc.). However, I understand that being an admin is more than merely editing and blocking people. I see it as an important responsibility, a responsiblity, which is not to be abused and shadowed with bias, and also one which with I am willing to handle in order to bring Wikipedia up to a very high standard. Therefore, I will also contribute to other areas of work around Wikipedia, to prove to myself that I do not show any bias towards a user, or edit only one area of this site. I believe with the admin tools, it will be a chance for me to block and ban any people, if necessary, although I see those as a last resort, because many people are willing to contribute greatly to the project, and I will only reluctantly ban or block as relevant. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to prove myself worthy as an administrator, and help shape Wikipedia into a great encyclopedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions to the project are my work in films, due to my high interest in the media (particularly films and video games), and that I would like Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, while maintaining the sense of an online encyclopedia. I realise that Wikipedia is not a film encyclopedia, which is why I always try to remove the irrelevant content in articles, and instead replace it with an overview of the articles in question. I have also tried to generally improve article quality of any subject, because I believe in quality, not quantity that counts. However, if good quality matched with good quantity, that would be even better.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in a conflict involving a film poster's credibility, upon which a user did cause me some stress. However, after thoroughly discussing the issues with the users involved, I understood that I was at fault, and issued an apology to the users. No further harm was done, and I now realise that I cannot afford to put personal issues into Wikipedia, because it wouldn't be fair on anybody. In future, I will be extra vigilent before I add anything to an article, so as to avoid any conflicts if possible. Conflicts disrupt Wikipedia, and do not do anything better for the project, other than causing distress to good Wiki users, and a certain amount of disruption. Therefore, I will strive to avoid any conflicts in the future, so as not to disrupt good editing for the project.

[edit] Questions from User:RyRy5

4. An editor, User:96.999.989.1 has created 1 attack page, and vandalised about 8 other pages. Since then they've made 10 contributions - all good faith. Their talk page is empty. What do you do?--RyRy5 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A:Well, the first thing I would do would be to try and contact them on their talk page again, e.g. giving them a warning and discuss the issue. Also, I would encourage them to setup their own account if they feel they want to make good contributes to Wikipedia. If, however, they continually vandalising pages, I would think about blocking them for a period of around 24 hours. If, after that time, they've decided to continue, I would block them for a couple of weeks, before I'd consider a permanent ban.

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?--RyRy5 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A:A ban is an action taken to stop users from editing Wikipedia for an indefinite amount of time. A block is an action taken to stop them temporarily from editing Wikipedia, in the hope that they might stop vandalising any articles and or talk pages.

[edit] Questions from Thehelpfulone

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?

A:I think that admin recall is a good thing to have, so as to find out if users still have faith in his/her work. Yes, I would add myself to the category of Admin Recall, so as to truly prove myself worthy of Adminship. If other uses agree that I have not been doing my duty, I will gladly step down

7. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?

A: If I feel that a user has worked really hard to contribute and counter vandalism, I would then gladly give them rollbacks rights, if they so desire. If the user appears to be abusing the rollback granted, I would firstly discuss the issue with them, and if they continue to abuse it, they would then have their rollback removed.

8. When should "cool down blocks" be used and why?

A: I believe cool down blocks should never be used, because it seems to be that kind of thing is more of a personal issue, and personal issues should not be brought onto Wikipedia. Even though the intention might be well-meaning, the situation might become worse, thus inflaming it.

9. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?

A:I have a neutral opinion on the subject. While I do agree that if a minor rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then it's okay to ignore that one, if it does not cause a lot of disrubtion. However, just because you ignore the rule does not mean you have to ignore every other, and vandalise the project. I belive it's a user's own opinion on whether or not they choose to take WP:IAR into consideration.

[edit] Optional Questions from Dominik92

10 A normally good editor makes one edit that deletes much sourced content from a page, what do you do?

A: Well, I would first give the editor a change to redeem his/herself if they have done it on accident or only once. If however, they continue along that road, I would contact the editor in question to try and put a stop to the offensive edits. If they still continue, I would give them a temporary block in order to make them understand what they did was wrong.

11 Another admin has blocked good faith user "user:Examplee" (an obvious typo from vandal "user:Example") what do you do?

A:Well, there would have to be a good reason for that, first of all. I would politely ask the admin in question what, if any, was the reason for blocked the good faith user. If it is a respectable reason, I would say no more on the subject. If, however, the reason semms unjustified, I would try and discuss it with the admin, and possibly persuade him/her to change their mind.

[edit] Optional question from DarkAudit

12. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
A:Well, the editors should be questioned as to what exactly they are planning to do. They should understand that WP is an encyclopedia, not their own personal website. They can do good faith edits and with references, as they please, however they should understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where edits should be Neutral , not a place to vandalise pages. I understand that they may have good intentions, and make good faith edits, but at the end of the day, if they only add their own opinion to the articles, then those edits should be reverted, and the users blocked from editing WP.

[edit] General comments

  • Useful page - I never saw it in my self nom! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/EclipseSSD before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Good editor. Competent, potential administrator. Rudget 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'm going to go out and say that Eclipse will do fine with the tools. While s/he hasn't had much experience in the projectspace, I believe that a quick look at WP:BLOCK, WP:PROT, and WP:DELETE will be all that Eclipse needs. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Good guy. -- Naerii 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak support. More project-space edits would be beneficial, but definitely would make a competent administrator. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per overwhelming number of project-space edits, and fantastic nomination statement. Majorly (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Lol. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I am bending the rules on my own requirements here but I think this user is worth it. The answers provide the wikipedian maturity that usually has to be provided by cruder means. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support, appears to be mature enough, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
  8. Support Dan Beale-Cocks 08:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. User assumes good faith and has a brain. Thus, I trust him. The nomination was tl;dr and the answers to questions indicated power hunger, but I will still support because I don't think he'll screw up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Self-nom, and nearly enough Wikispace work. EJF (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Has good intentions. SunCreator (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support due to no negative interactions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support due to great and thorough answers to questions. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - Nothing alarms me in sifting through the contributions, and I like the statement and the answers to the questions. Last time I checked, Admins lack actual superhuman powers, so claims of power hunger amongst the opposition do not concern me. That said, I will now attempt to use my X-Ray vision on some lottery scratch tickets to see if these admin powers are as diabolical as claimed. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support I trust him. hmwithτ 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Moral Support, partly to counterbalance the "Oppose, self-nom" votes below. (Don't tell me the Weber philosophy is actually catching on...) I do have some concerns, in that q1 and q5 demonstrate a slight misunderstanding of the admin tools, and the candidate doesn't have quite enough projectspace experience. Regardless, he is clearly a trustworthy and well-intentioned user who might well make a good admin one day, and I encourage him to apply again in a few months after gaining more experience. WaltonOne 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Agree with Walton One's rationale: I'm actually disappointed with some of the reasons provided for opposing this candidate. Acalamari 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Moral Support I feel that you will eventually make a good admin, but this RFA doesn't have a chance. So far you have shown that you make good judgements and can think, which means your halfway there. I suggest that you have a Editor Review to see where you are. Also, I'm glad to see your working in a variety of places. If you need anything, let me know. Good luck EclipseSSD. Dusticomplain/compliment 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Plain and simple: He's trustorthy. -- P.B. Pilhet 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Seems like a reliable editor with no issues. See no reason, per WP:NBD, why they should be denied admin status. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose not because I distrust EclipseSSD, but I feel that he needs more experience around Wikipedia, especially in the project space. 55 edits is underwhelming. I like his answers, but I think he could be more involved with other editors and in more varied places on the project space. That way, he can achieve a better understanding of what it means to engage in dialog and use the tools accordingly. I would encourage his continued involvement, as I foresee that he will be a better candidate down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Simply more experience needed. Tiptoety talk 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose but with strong moral support: I'm not being ageist, but more project space edits is fundamental, not least because you're only 14. Come back in a few months with experience under your belt and I look forward to supporting your RfA at a later date. WilliamH (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    You might have been better not to mention age there at all, just experience. I'm only 15, so he's just a year younger than me.--Jaeger123 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, I realise I wasn't very clear with my comment. The sentiment I'm getting at is that while experience is obviously necessary regardless, it is very likely that people may use his age as a basis to comment on his administrative actions. Since the candidate has made his age public, I find it important that his experience implicitly demonstrates that ageist criticism of him in an administrative role from passing users is unfounded. I certainly believe it is, and since it seems his heart is in the right place, I'd like to think I will be able to support the candidate at a later date once he's got said experience under his belt and I hope that he has found this RfA helpful dialogue by which to obtain this. WilliamH (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Sorry bud, gonna have to rely on the age old lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Also, the answers to the questions were just a tad too vague for my taste. I was a little confused reading about how you'd like to use the tools in areas you currently work in, which, frankly is the mainspace. I understand you were probably referring to disputes and vandalism, but administrators shouldn't concentrate their efforts on articles they contribute to, at least not exclusively. And, it gives you a chance to block and ban people? Strange thing to say. I know you tempered it with "last resort", but the tools shouldn't be desired to give you the chance to start blocking and banning users. Come back in 10-12 weeks after some moderate to high level activity at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP. WP:HD, WP:ANI etc..etc.. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per everyone above. Also because of the low number of edits in general (not just the low project edits). And it's a self-nom. And another thing to mention, out of your last 500 edits only two weren't marked Minor.--KojiDude (Contributions) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - I happen to be disagreeing with my admin coach here, interestingly. EclipseSSD is a user is in good standing, but fails to have enough experience to fit my criteria. Hardly any experience in the admin related areas of interest. The user doesn't, therefore, have experience to know when blocks are used, which means learning by doing, as well as taking a look at WP:BLOCK. The answer to question five is also incorrect, per WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. And finally, the answer to question one also gives me the impression that he believes that administrators also ban users. The only time a single administrator bans a user is when that administrator happens to be Jimbo Wales. Sorry, but a bit more work in these areas and you would be a good candidate for adminship. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - Thank you all for your honest opinion. I know I've got some work to do and I'll take your comments into consideration, and I'll hopefully have improved.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Be sure to let me know when you decide to have your next RfA. I might even co-nom for you, since it appears to me that you have a lot of promise. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Jimbo is nothing special. If he's allowed to do something, then everyone else should be too. If no one else is allowed to do something, then he shouldn't be either. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, Jimbo is the only single person that can ban other users (which he rarely does anyway). In any other case it requires the group decision of either the Arbitration Committee or the community itself. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think you fail to grasp the meaning of the word "should." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    Jimbo's authority is not legitimate, nor is ArbCom's (as it was created by a person without legitimate authority in the first place). Monobi (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Is this really the best place for you guys to give your personal opinions on Jimbo?--KojiDude (Contributions) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Sorry, just can't support at this time. The answers to the questions leave me a little ill at ease. Balloonman (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose with moral support - You're intentions are clearly valid and morally justified, you simply need a little bit more experience (especially in project space). I've not a problem with your age either, i'm only 16, young editors can still make correct decisions and excellent edits. Kind regards with best of luck too! CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per the above comments. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per User:Wisdom89 but reluctantly as I don't want to stifle enthusiasm. The age issue is irrelevant to me, but I believe you need a little wider and deeper experience than you currently have. I think everyone here wants you to succeed but don't feel you're quite experienced enough yet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Sorry, but just not enough experience yet. Great intentions, but the answers to the questions show a need to gain more familiarity with WP policies and what exactly it is that admins do. Keep editing, and participate in policy discussions for a while. Best wishes, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose 2500 edits and hardly none in the namespace - maybe when you get some more experience. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 01:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Too few edits and not enough information on the what and why you need admin tools? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
  14. Oppose Self-nom, and not nearly enough Wikispace work. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Needs more experience and not even an intro to tell us why relying on qs the community asks except to say an active contributor since July? You will learn. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, sorry. Low amount of project-space edits, and your nom is supposed to tell me why I should support you. Xenon54 11:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Kurt Weber and because the answers to questions (see comments above; for me 1, 5 and 6 were quite worrying). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think Kurt's had his vote yet ;-) TheProf - T / C 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose I do not care about the age - we have had, and have, younger admins - but the lack of experience in admin-related areas is important, and the answers to questions 1 and 5 are worrying. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose because I'm uncomfortable with someone who declares "with the admin tools, it will be a chance for me to block and ban any people". Almost certainly a poorly phrased statement rather than a statement of a desire to block people, so it's more the lack of judgement that led to the statement rather than any thought that the candidate has a perverse wish to go around blocking people for the fun of it. SilkTork *YES! 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose I'm Sorry, But I don't trust you and I don't think I ever will. You're argumentative and i think you will do wikipedia nothing but harm. You simply are not good enough to be an admin and i hope you never will be! SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) — SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  20. Oppose: Far too few edits, especially to areas outside of articles; and per SilkTork. seicer | talk | contribs 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per the Kurt Webber principle because, after all, we have enough power hungry admins without nominating any more.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Can you please explain your reasoning on this? How has this user showed power hunger? Dusticomplain/compliment 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Strong OpposeYou just seem a little to anxious to get power. King Rock Go 'Skins! 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Can you please explain your reasoning on this? How has this user showed power hunger? Dusticomplain/compliment 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Paradoxsociety (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per age, lack of experience. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Needs more experience and expert knowledge of policies. Bstone (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Talks the talk without forcing an instant headache but not up to scratch: way too young, too inexperienced, too self-loving, too fond of power, too overall problematic. Soz. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Care to diff any of these? asenine t/c\r 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per Paradoxsociety and others. Markovich292 05:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  29. Oppose I'm sorry, you really seem to have the makings of a great admin, but wait a bit and get some more experience, the answers to q1 and q5 are worrying. Age however is no consideration. Harland1 (t/c) 12:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Your answer to question 1 sounds vague and long-winded and like you really don't know why you want to be an admin, except for wanting to join the club. You say that you plan to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia, yet you don't say which parts specifically. You say that you are planning to prove yourself once you become an admin, yet you don't say why you need the admin tools for that. What worries me most though, is that you say you plan to block users, however this record shows that you have almost zero experience in doing so. You haven't reported any users to WP:AIV or WP:RAA as far as I can see. I know from my own experience in reporting users that it is easy to get it wrong in the beginning, and that some of my reports were erroneous even if well-intentioned. I have reported dozens of users to AIV, and I would not trust myself to be an admin yet. Blocking a user isn't always a simple decision (even if it is most of the time). It requires a lot of experience in this area and detailed knowledge of wikipedia policies. Get involved a little bit more in the WP namespace, come back in a few months and I will support you. Cambrasa confab 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Mostly because of few Wiki-space edits. With some more edits in that area, I would probably support in a few months. Spinach Dip 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Editor has more to learn before administrating others. Doczilla STOMP! 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral A little more project-space involvement is needed. Epbr123 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Fabulous contributions so far, good editor in general (age is irrelevant to me). I agree with Epbr that I'd like to see more project space work from you before I'd support giving you the delete/block/protect buttons. Would you abuse them? Absolutely not. Would you misuse them? Hard to say, I don't have much to look at as far as the traditional editcounting, project work, AIV reporting, CSD/AFD nominating. Not a strong enough reason to oppose a good candidate otherwise though. Good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for your opinions. I'll take those into consideration.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral To avoid piling on - A good user to be sure, but just needs more experience. His age doesn't even factor in, but I like to see around 5000 edits, and if an editor has less than that I want to see some extraordinary contributions. I could support in the future, but you just need a few more edits under your belt. faithless (speak) 05:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Will not knowingly abuse the buttons, but needs more experience to be trusted with them. Seemingly knows aspects of policy pretty well, mind! ;~) Should be a prime candidate in a few months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - not quite there with experience, but maybe in a few months? Bearian (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Needs a tad more experiance, though not necessarilly in the Wikipedia namespace. Try to get involved in somee major work. Editorofthewiki 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Not enough experience to support, nothing too bad to oppose.--Bedford 03:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral: Per Experience - and some of the other user's reasons. --The Helpful One (Review) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral: While I would like to see some more experience, I also would like to see this user become an admin; I've seen few RFAs where the questions were answered so thoroughly without any fluff. I can't oppose or support; I'm a bit on the fence in this one. If he comes back next time with around 4500 - 5000 edits, this will definitely be a support. FusionMix 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Neutral I believe that taking the constructive criticism here to heart, and demonstrating it by actions around the project, will be very helpful in passing your next RfA. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Neutral with Moral support. I'd really like to see you as an admin one day, if only because I believe you'd bring the number of admins in Hampshire to 3!!. I think you're on the right track, but not there yet. Please don't take this RFA too hard and continue your dedication. If you need any help please ask! Pedro :  Chat  13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Neutral - I think that more experience is required before I support, however, I do think that you are an excellent editor. I hope that yuo take this on board, and work hard to alleviate the criticisms that have been levelled against you. Good luck. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:02, 25 April 2008 (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.