Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ezeu

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] Ezeu

Final (37/9/14) ended 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ezeu (talk · contribs) – I'd like to nominate Ezeu for adminship. I've been seeing him around for a while now making a lot of outstanding article edits, mostly related to East Africa. He has plenty of experience, having been here since July 2005, and has been very active in his time here. Aside from adding content, he is has also been involved in fighting vandalism and has plenty of participation in deletion discussions. He strikes me as someone who has been accidentally overlooked by our adminning process for a while, and one who we should promote without a fuss. Dmcdevit·t 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I do. Thanks for the nomination.--Ezeu 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. For the same reasons as nomination. Dmcdevit·t 02:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    Support Seems like a well qualified, well-rounded candidate. JoshuaZ 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support quality contributor. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - Hahnchen 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, Overall a good contributor. Shyam (T/C) 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support -- There should probably always be a fuss when considering a nominee; but this appears to be a solid editor with a good understanding of what we need to uphold. John Reid 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --Tone 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Rama's Arrow 19:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Not too much maitenance activity for about a month. But that's not a reason for opposing. And since there seems to be none, I'll support. Redux 19:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support One of our very best editors on African articles, I'm surprised he isn't already an admin--Aldux 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - Richardcavell 22:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Slightly Strong Support This member has contributed well and now he deserves to be an admin. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 23:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per nom. DarthVader 02:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support He's seemingly an all-around good guy. I praise him for taking great efforts in having us better understand East Africa. --Shultz IV 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Looks good --Leidiot 13:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support A good contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Well, gee, I trust Ezeu. Don't we need more administrators? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, I trust Dmcdevit's judgement. Proto||type 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, but please use edit summaries more. Jonathunder 22:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    I promise betterment.--Ezeu 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, excellent user in my experience (done great work on African music stuff), don't think he'll abuse the tools. Sidebar: I'm glad I became an admin before all this crap about namespace edits/scrutinizing every anon interaction/edit summary usage/policy quizzes was necessary, as I'd never make it today, despite using my admin powers for years with nary a single significant dispute. Tuf-Kat 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support--Jusjih 14:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Since his arrival, when he was promptly awarded an Exceptional Newcomer Award, this user has been one of the few who regularly appears on my watchlist, and I have had nothing but positive and constructive interactions. Addressing comments below about low talk page use, one explanation is that he simply edits in topics frequented by few other contributors. For example, he and I are of the handful of editors on Ugandan-geo-stubs, and there really isn't much to discuss. - BanyanTree 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Ezeu is a good-natured editor contributing quality content, and I'm sure he would be a fine admin. I second BanyanTree's remark on the supposed scarcity of user interaction. There simply aren't as many active editors in this corner of Wikipedia as in some others. — mark ✎ 22:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)omm
  26. I think Ezau has gotten some opposes here that make little or no sense to me. Number of edits to talk pages? Not using the exact right templates in the exact right order? RFA put in the wrong place briefly? Man, the requirements people have are getting out of hand here. I'll probably get some revenge opposes myself for saying this but I think all those reasons are not, put together, worth even a neutral. Dmcdevit is one of our best editors, one of our best Wikipedians. We elected him to ArbComm after all, so we expect him to be able to weigh facts and draw sound conclusions. If he researched this candidate and took the time to nominate him, that says a LOT about the quality of the candidate right there. I have no reservations here. Adminship is no big deal. STRONG Support. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Hear, hear! — mark ✎ 17:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support has the right temprament for an admin. (Shifted from Neutral) --Andy123(talk) 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Weak support. I'm concerned with the improper use of the test templates, but the candidate looks good otherwise. Conscious 14:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support after much thought and sitting on fences, which has made my bottom sore. I think he's learned a lot just from this RfA; he'll learn more. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support as of an experienced, hard working editor, who might benefit from the tools abakharev 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Although I have some concerns (esp. those raised by Tigershark below), I think in balance making Ezeu an admin will be good for the project. Bucketsofg 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Good editor & seems like will be a responsible administrator. Should be given a chance. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Good editor and vandal patroller; we've crossed swords at times, but I believe you're level-headed and responsible. dewet|✉ 21:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support seems like he would be a good admin --rogerd 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per Lar - Aksi_great (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Strong contributor watching African articles. Wizzy…☎ 14:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support After reviewing a sample of his edits, reading the comments of this RFA discussion, and watching his interaction during RFA, I going to support. I think he will take TigerShark's comments to heart and be a good admin. FloNight talk 14:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose, Malformed RFA request. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Another candidate who talks about using the admin tools to block vandals without hardly ever editing WP:AIAV (4 edits in this case) and also failing to consistently warn vandals (e.g. 3 reverts at 1:24, 1:54 and 2:00 on the morning of the 21st - no warnings). I want to see this user demonstrate a greater commitment to reforming vandals (via warnings) rather than just blocking them, and also to gain greater experience of the blocking process (by contributing at AIAV) before being let loose with the blocking tool. TigerShark 02:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, I am not convinced that this user understand the policy and practice of blocking users. At 17:11 on the 6th an IP made this edit which Ezeu reverted. To be fair Ezeu did issue a warning here, but went straight to a {{test4}} when the previous warning had been 2 days earlier (not the end of the world, but to my mind a bit heavy handed). However, the IP did not vandalise further, but Ezeu still reported them on AIAV at 18:06 here. This clearly goes against standard practice and I can only imagine that if Ezeu had had the tools he would have blocked. If it had been a few months ago I could let it slide, but this happened a little over two weeks ago. As I said earlier, a lot more experience and an adjusted approach required. TigerShark 02:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, but in all fairness: just look at this anon's history: the IP is used exclusively to vandalize Wikipedia. Every single time. Has been warned time and again. Not only ignored the warnings, by continuing to vandalize, but also blanked the IP talk page of all the warnings. It was a fairly reasonable assumption that the IP would continue to vandalize, as it did indeed. This, it would appear, justifies a test4 warning and a report following the warning. This is a returning, indeed insistent vandal, that has been completely ignoring any attemps of reasoning. This vandal returns in periodic waves, but always to vandalize exclusively. The last spree was exactly between 4 and 11 of April. 13 attacks, five of them on April 11 alone. Should have been blocked on April 4 (four attacks), when it returned to vandalize after having done it on March 15 (17 attacks!!), March 16 (7 attacks) and March 22 (3 attacks), having been warned (and ignored it) again. Redux 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a test4 can't be justified in this case (I would personally have gone for a 2 or 3 and then escalated - which can be done with very little extra effort if the vandalism continues).
    My main concern is that the anon was warned and stopped vandalising, but then a request to block was made anyway (and presumably the candidate would have blocked if they could). If a vandal has stopped after a warning then we should not be blocking them (as frustrating as that might be). In this case, if the anon had vandalised just once after the test4 then I would have no problem with blocking them - but not if they have stopped. The request was in fact rejected on the basis that the vandalism had stopped.
    One last point I would like to make is that given all of this vandalism, the IP has only been blocked once. The reason for this seems to be a failure to issue warnings (the warning escalation process works well and vandals can get blocked very quickly if it is followed). Not the fault of the candidate in this instance, but it does reinforce the need to always warn when reverting - something which, as I highlighted in my initial comment, this candidate doesn't seem to do enough. TigerShark 11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    In most cases, I'd agree. But this anon is one of those cases. He didn't really stop. He took a "bathroom break" (six more attacks on 10 and 11 of April). The only reason why there were no more attacks on April 6 is because the anon only performed one attack that day, of his own will, not because he read our warnings. This pattern of behavior was/is highly predictable from analizing the IP's list of contributions — once he even disappeared for over 3 months (December 8, 2005 — March 15), but then returned in full throttle, always vandalizing. The blanking of the talk page is clear evidence that the individual behind that IP was well aware of the warnings, read them, and just couldn't care less (kept on vandalizing).
    True, the warning issuing process was not done properly (through no fault of the candidate, though), but the practical result has been that a blatant, returning vandal has been benefiting from a [almost] clean slate every time he, for his own convenience alone, takes a break from vandalizing. This individual is well aware of the objections to vandalizing Wikipedia, and yet he returns and does it just the same — probably thinks he can get away with it scot-free, which he basically has (probably didn't even notice that he was blocked that one time). A situation like this (very particular) warrants a block without further warning, but if it's a non-Admin that encounters the situation, (s)he cannot block. They can do only what Ezeu did: warn again, to no effect, and place a report on the vandal.
    The point being: Ezeu's actions in this instance does not appear, to me, as any indication, per se, of lack of familiarity with the warning issuing/blocking process. The first time he encountered the vandal, he placed a vehement warning, as the anon's history warrants, and, given the lack of a previous action, placed a request for intervention against vandalism (the vandal is slipping through the cracks in the system). Of course, I noted in my own rationale that the candidate has not been doing much maintenance work as of recently. Perhaps this is one of the instances where it would be useful to ask the candidate questions, so as to determine his degree of familiarity with the job. Redux 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    I absolutely hear what you are saying, but he did not follow the correct approach - one more instance of vandalism and it would have been correct to use WP:AIAV. If anything he should have reported the anon at WP:RFI for ongoing, but not current, vandalism. With a bit more experience he'll pick this kind of thing up (no chance with only 4 edits to the AIAV page). As for questions, they can be useful but they are no substitute for looking at a user's actual contributions (especially recent ones). TigerShark 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    I see. You are thinking of RFI because of the "stop and go" pattern — perhaps especifically because of the events of April 6, when the anon [only by coincidence, I'd say] did not vandalize (on that day) after being warned. Whereas in my perception, given the pattern of behavior/actions, I would qualify that as obvious vandalism. And as for considering it as currently stopped, yes, technically, it wouldn't be "ongoing" during that period of time between the sole attack on April 6 and the attack on April 10, but I would see it as understandable that it were reported on AIAV, since the IP returns to vandalizing on clear sprees, and keeps at it during a certain period like clockwork. I couldn't guarantee that even a very experienced user would never have placed a request at AIAV, so I couldn't really say that Ezeu's action happened only because he lacks the necessary experience. As I said, this anon is one of those cases. Denying the request because it was placed at AIAV and he had not attacked since being warned for the last time made it possible for the vandal to attack six more times only a few days later. I know that there's the intructions at the top of the page, but a simple checking of the anon's "contribs" (what an inadequate word...) would have revealed that this was indeed a case for blocking. And yes, Ezeu posted there in spite of the instructions, but, again, I can understand given the anon's situation (with which Ezeu got frustrated, clearly, by the contents of his post). Redux 21:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per TigerShark, blocking is a last resort and is only to be used if the vandal has been amply warned, with IP's we really don't know who it is and a firm test4 might correct the behaviour in question. I've included my optional questions below, I may change to neuteral or support based on what I see -- Tawker 02:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose Per Tigershark and Tawker. JoshuaZ 02:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Tigershark. If one mentions blocking as an area of interest in Q1, then one should have sufficient background in that area (AIAV) before being given the tools. Here, more experience is needed. Xoloz 02:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per evidence of the malformed RFA, the lack of interation with the community and evidence of recent misuse of test templates. Moε e 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    This is not a self-nomination, so a malformed nomination should not bear on the nominee. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 22 April 2006 @ 03:06 UTC
    Not about if it was a self-nom or not, see: this. Moε e 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose Per above. _-M o P-_ 06:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above. NSLE (T+C) at 10:42 UTC (2006-04-22)
  9. Oppose Less than promising answers. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose I was going to vote Support, but what seems to me like a very small amount of interaction in the community (I believe 4% of edits being made to talk pages is his statistic) barely pushed me in the other direction. Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Reluctant Oppose For the reasons above. Sad to see a strong contributer be so overaggressive on the blocking. Encouraging new and anonymous users though is a cornerstone of Wikipedia worth keeping.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs)
    User's first edit was yesterday. Conscious 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Is every new user subject to this commentary when they vote against a proposed admin? I don't seem to see this when I vote support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs)

Neutral

  1. Lack of interaction with the community; only about 4% of edits are to user talk. Also, poor use of edit summaries. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral mainly due to the incorrectly done nomination and the low edit summary usage. AndyZ t 21:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Not sute yet Jaranda wat's sup 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral until Tawker's questions are answered --Andy123(talk) 03:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    Changing vote to Support --Andy123(talk) 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. There are reasons to support and reasons to oppose. Royboycrashfan 03:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, I want to support but the points that TigerShark brings up are too important. SorryGuy 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Conditional Neutral I don't oppose, but I really need to see more AIV usage if he's a vandal fighter. Also, user talk summary is rather low for a vandal fighter. If this is rectified, I'd have no problem supporting. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - The positives and the negatives seem to be cancelling each other out. Whilst there is evidence of anti-vandalism, there are also slip-ups and evidence of unfamiliarity with the warning process. --Knucmo2 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I agree with Knucmo2. I don't see any major problems that would cause me to vote oppose. JIP | Talk 16:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Concerns brought up by oppose voters are interesting, but I don't consider them damning. Not contributing to WP:AIAV especially does not seem like a problem to me. joturner 17:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral, I don't see any reason to oppose at the time being. --Terence Ong 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral leaning towards support. --kingboyk 16:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral per most above. Edit summary usage in particular needs to increase. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral, formerly Opposed I did say Oppose, until someone pointed out the error of my ways. Jared W!!! 18:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See Ezeu's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • I'm trying to understand those opposing here. So what if he isn't very active on AIV or doesn't warn a ton of vandals? That's not what every admin is here for. I know I certainly did hardly any vandalism fighting before being promoted, and not very much afterwards either. In fact, most often my occasional vandalism-fighting as an admin has consisted of coming across vandalism on my watchlist and rolling it back, blocking peristent vandals I see on my watchlist and other similar things which don't involve active RC patrolling or WP:AIV duty. And (if I may be so presumptuous to say so) someone like me can still be competent enough to take the correct measures against vandals when necessary. And be a useful admins besides, in areas other than vandalism. It's not really a big deal and nothing that's been presented here makes me question Ezeu's judgment in being able to sensibly whack vandals. Dmcdevit·t 01:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is (probably) counterproductive for me to retort, but I'll do it anyway. Yes, blocking is a last resort - I will not block an IP just for the sake of it. Reverting vandalism is something I have to deal with rather often (as in the often vandalized Bob Marley and Nelson Mandela articles). As frusturating as it may be, I am seldom "overaggressive" (as implied by some) in dealing with vandals. Au contraire, I am calm (a particularity that could be used as an argument against me as well). Regarding blocking, when an editor receives a "this is your last warning" message thrice, and that editor ignores it and several subsequent warnings, then I reckon a test4 isn't overaggressive. In hindsight I should perhaps have treated that example as a recurrent vandalism, rather than vandalism in progress. The responsibility of being an Admin will obligate me to follow warning procedures more carefully, but I will continue to frown upon vandalism. I'd rather not be an admin than be expected to back down from my belief that vandalism is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with fervently. I do not mean that I will run amok with the blocking tool, just that I'll be somewhat vigilant. I will also consult with my experienced admin friends before I do anything severe. --Ezeu 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • (as someone said to me) Hear, hear! We need people who stand up for their principles and do the right thing, regardless of whether process says add test3 first before you block. (er, did I just say that?) ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but, from the point of view of my vote, this (and my later discussion with Redux) only addresses a single issue - which I stated wasn't very important (i.e. going straight to a {{test4}}. The other issues are:
  • You have only 4 edits to WP:AIAV which indicates both a lack of exposure to the warning escalation process and also fails to show a need for the block tool
  • You warned a vandal, who then stopped, but you still requested a block
  • A failure to regularly use warning templates (I provided example in my original vote)
I am also concerned about this "principles over policy" issue. As we all know policies are not just created ad-hoc in a vacuum but are reached through substantial discussion, experience and consensus. "Principles over policy" too often means "my opinion over the community consensus" TigerShark 00:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, we should abide by policy. But policies do not contrast principles. Both are essential. Policies are born from principles.Ezeu 03:00, 27 April 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'd participate in AfD discussions and closings. I'd also like to participate more in policy and consensus discussions, and their enforcement. I'd certainly continue dealing with vandalism, and not only as I do now repeatedly warning them (vandals develop immunity against warnings) – 24-hour temp-bans, I believe, is effectual against newcomer saboteurs (blatant vandals). Helping to counter systemic bias, albeit not specifically a sysop responsibility, will continue to be important to me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have cleaned up, and in some cases rewritten quite a few articles. If I must say which articles I am most pleased with, then I reckon I'd mention Yoweri Museveni, which I helped make into a featured article. I am also happy with my edits to African musicians and music genres, ie soukous and some musicians in Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc. I'm also quite pleased with my contributions to Bob Marley, Swahili language, Sport in Sweden and my cleanup of List of awards bestowed on Nelson Mandela. I have, and will continue to expand stubs. I believe that my edits have helped bring some balance to, and quell disagreements, to many articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I try not to get involved into revert wars. I decided sometime back that I'd revert once maximum, then try to discuss with my "foes" instead, and keep my calm – whatever. I can reminisce one real conflict: an issue regarding whether or not Nelson Mandela was the first democratic president of South Africa, an issue that was resolved quite quickly by compromise (but with some residual disagreement between me and another editor).

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you dont' want to touch if you like :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A:I'd refer the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or request for arbitration if serious.
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A: I would respect the other admin's decision, and submit a statement to the RFAR.
  3. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A: I would refrain from indefinite blocks unless a user commits a serious breach, ie. disruptive use of sockpuppets or repeated personal attacks. I'd follow Wikipedia's blocking policy in any case.
  4. Suppose you are closing and AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is you answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?
    A: If I strongly suspect a sockpuppet/meatpuppet, I'd disregard from that vote. If the RCU is inconclusive, or the result is between "no consensus" and "delete" then I would not delete.
  5. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A: I can handle stressful situations in real life, and Wikipedia will not break me down.
  6. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A: I was nominated, so I thought, why not, could be interesting and rewarding to help out.
  7. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A: Certainly not political as far as the tasks I anticipate to do are concerned.


The above 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.