Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lradrama 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Lradrama

Final (56/0/3); Ended16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lradrama (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I am able to nominate Lradrama to become an administrator. He has had one previous RfA which was not successful. The major concerns in that were his lack of edits to wikipedia space. I now feel confident that Lradrama has sufficient edits to project space and he is a very active contributor to AfD discussions. Whenever he comments there, he always gives thoughtful responses which show a clear understanding of the notability criteria. His edits here show that he would be good at closing these discussions. He's also a very compentant recent change patroller, and has a good number of edits to AIV and I believe these edits show that he would use the block button in the correct way. What I like about Lradrama are his contributions at the help desk showing his commitment to helping other users. He also does some good article work, especially to Formula 1 related articles. All in all, I really do trust this user with the tools, and I hope you can help me support him in his request for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

It is with immense gratitude that I accept the nomination. Lradrama 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[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: I would like to start off with working in the areas I currently specialise in, which are patrolling the recent changes and reverting vandalism, working on AIV and AfD. I would welcome the use of proper tools in these areas to speed up the way I operate and so I can accomplish more work. Then, I would like to branch out, and explore other areas of Wikipedia and try my hand in those areas. Another aim of mine throughout all of this is to continue to provide help and assistance to other users who are struggling or need to ask questions. I will remain active on the help desk and the Wikipedian's looking for help category. Lradrama 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of my contributions to the Toyota F1 article. I have written a significant amount of its content, added a large amount of references and held discussions with many Wikipedians in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Formula One on how to keep up a cycle of continuous improvement. I have also greatly improved the Lancashire United article, getting it from a small stub into a bigger article, which is backed up with references. There's a lot of work that still needs to be done yet though. I have also written three of my own articles, which I hope to continually improve. I take pride in reverting the constant stream of vandalism on Wikipedia and also my assistance to newer users who ask for help, either on the help desk, via their own talkpage or on my talkpage. There's nothing like the feeling you get after making someone's day easier and happier, so I will always gladly offer my help to anyone on Wikipedia.
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: Conflicts with other users are inevitable if you are an active Wikipedian. I have been involved in a number of conflicts, whether it be with persistant vandals or just other editors. I prefer to have civilised discussions with the Wikipedians in question, which, unfortunately don't always end up as one would wish with the former. It usually all turns out right in the end with other users who regularly edit Wikipedia, as a conflict often starts out as a heated outburst from a user, who, after discussion, calms down and everything is resolved.
So, with conflicts involving vandals, I am usually faced with an abusive comment on my talkpage. I try my best to cool the whole thing down through being nice and supportive, and offering rewards for their understanding and reform through things like Wiki-love smiles or barnstars. Most of the time this works. Sometimes it doesn't and a typical result is my userpage getting vandalised, and I usually go to the AIV way of sorting things out. But this is rare, because vandals are human like ourselves after all, not just some rageous animal hell-bent on destroying our work.
I have thus found that, in most cases of conflict, the chances of everything all turning out right in the end, and earning a new friend as a result, are made so much easier with patience and kindness, which I do my best to employ at all times. Lradrama 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Lradrama Requests for adminship/Lradrama 2

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Checking out the edits, great work with mainspace. If I had an account, I would vote support per an obvious understand of the spirit of Wikipedia. 70.250.215.30 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with IP editor. Furthermore, Lradrama has, in my experience, been a very civil editor who is open to discussion. Good qualities we need in an admin. I am very much in favour of sysopping him/her.  ;) Cheers, Iamunknown 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Helpful editor who's doing some good work. Nice contributions to Toyota F1 and Lancashire United. Majoreditor 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support dang it, didn't beat nom. No concerns whatsoever. Rudget Contributions 14:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I opposed last time to allow for a little more experience, believing you were well on the way at the time... and I like what I have seen since. Good luck! Hiberniantears 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Nothing to indicate that the candidate is unsuitable. One little nit pick though: Lradrama states on all his userpages "This page is owned by Lradrama". I'm assuming that he doesn't really mean it. Just gives the wrong impression. But meh. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong support. This is an easy one. He has made extensive contributions to en.WP, including but not limited to: lots of edits big and small, new articles, vandal-fighting (with over 20 "scars" to prove it), much constructive talk both on user's pages and at AfD (although he seems to be more of a deletionist than I am), and has made an effort to create fair but flexible standards for RfA. I've encountered Lardrama frequently in the past few months here at WP, and he has proven his trustworthiness. Bearian 15:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Per nomination statement. Simple. Should have been sysoped on sight! Best. Pedro :  Chat  15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Come across you at the help desk. Always helpful and knowledgable. Good traits for an admin. Woodym555 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Good answers to questions and fine contributions. Unlikely to delete the main page. A Traintalk 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - helpful and friendly editor. Concur that he probably won't delete the main page. Addhoc 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. I see Ryan beat me to someone on my potential nom list. Support. Wizardman 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - 'nuff said. Ronnotel 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Certainly, after all, we know that all Ryan Postlethwaite noms are always right. Good candidate. 1 GDonato (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Trust nom and doubt user will abuse tools. Tiddly-Tom 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support I think that this user will make a fine admin. Captain panda 20:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support my recent interactions with him have been stellar. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - Nothing wrong here. Great job.   jj137 (Talk) 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. As far as I am concerned, Lradrama's response to my oppose is more than satisfactory. With a good attitude and response like that, Lradrama will make a good administrator, and I am happy to support this nomination. Acalamari 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Is ready. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - Excellent anti-vandal work. Gscshoyru 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Wikipedia always needs more vandal fighters. --Sharkface217 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support Per nom. PatPolitics rule! 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support It is time to give this user the mop. An excellent vandal fighter as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support trustworthy user. I see no big problems. Good luck. Carlosguitar 07:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support The problems mentioned below do not seem serious to me. A careful editor who makes useful comments. DGG (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Solid user. Recurring dreams 08:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support While I have not had the pleasure of actually "Wiki-meeting" Lradrama, I have seen him around many times, and he's been quicker on the draw than I on the Help Desk quite often, or chiming in to add information that I may have forgotten to add, that a new editor may find helpful. As I do with every RfA I comment on, I've taken a good deal of time going through his contributions, and I'm quite impressed. His most active mainspace area seems to be, as he's said, the Toyota F1 article, and for anyone who may not have dug into it, Lradrama first began editing this article in January of this year, and has contributed over 30% of the article's edits. This is what the article looked like when he began, and of course, this is how it appears today. While I personally prefer NASCAR, I decided not to hold this against him. :o) I'm impressed with the work he's put into it, the article is well sourced, and well written. Moving onto Lradrama's ability to communicate and work with others: Aside from his work at the Help Desk, his ability to explain issues in a heated environment can be seen at Talk:Daniel Radcliffe, where there are rather lengthy threads that he's participated in, bringing a measure of calm rationality to the conversations, interspersed with a bit of humor for good measure. He's also been a regular participant at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One, which further illustrates his ability to work with others, a trait definitely required by an administrator. I particularly found his answer to Question 3 refreshing, and if no specific incident jumps out at him worth mentioning, it seems that he's able to handle conflict with aplomb. Within administrative areas, Lradrama does some vandalism work, with 38 reports to AIV. I will note that I'd like to see him take a bit more care with warning levels, as I noticed that he used a level 2 warning here, when the last warning prior to today's notice was on the 10th. I realize, however, it is easy to see "October 2007" headers, and proceed with the warning levels following what was previously given, especially with editors such as this IP who seem to have a pattern of warnings on the talk page. Again I noticed a level 2 warning given for an offense after several days of inactivity to an IP, here, and again dealing with an IP with a history, but in the case of shared IPs, I'd prefer to see a level 1 given if several days have gone by, as the chances are quite high that it is not the same person doing the editing. I'd encourage Lradrama to take a little more time to review the date of last warning, look through contributions, and be sure that a level 2+ warning is needed, but I also tend to be a bit of a stickler for progression of templates, starting at level 1, so this could simply be a stylistic difference, and Lradrama does use level 1 notices for new offenders, as evidenced here and here, for example. Finally, I will simply say that I very much trust Ryan's judgment, and I know that he does not nominate those he hasn't looked into carefully. I have no doubt that Lradrama will make a fine addition to the administrative team, and take his time with areas he may not be familiar with. The preceding lengthy comment brought to you by ArielVerbosity™. Ariel♥Gold 10:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support with some reservations. The Goodshoped35110 comment could have been phrased in a less bitey manner, he should make more use of minor edits, and there are some other causes for concern mentioned already, but I am satisfied with Lradrama overall and the good outweighs the bad for me. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Seen good things from this editor, and is obviously here for the good of the encyclopedia. Unlikely to abuse the buttons. LessHeard vanU 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Strongest possible support Excellent, trustworthy, civil user with a good knowledge of policy--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 14:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - Has made a lot of wonderful contributions and is a superb vandal fighter. AngelOfSadness talk 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Yays! Good luck! Dfrg.msc 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Good work since last time. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support This user is terrific, I agree with Pedro! Phgao 06:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Indeed. Jmlk17 07:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Another easy support vote. We need good editors who are willing to take hold of the tools and use them well. From all accounts, it appears that Lradrama will do just that. K. Scott Bailey 14:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Checked user contributions and everything seems in order. - Jehochman Talk 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Strong experience, obviously to be trusted. VanTucky Talk 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support No reason to oppose. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Balloonman 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support looks great --Pumpmeup 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per nom. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 05:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support as first time 'round. Evidence of 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support seen him/her in afd's & in speedy land, knows policy and no reason to oppose. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. I've had positive experiences with Lradrama; should make a solid admin. -- Satori Son 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  46. Very Weak Support - Concerns raised by Acalamari and Dorftrottel are worrying; Lradrama needs to make more of an effort to be civil in commenting on RfAs. However, given the candidate's good contributions, it isn't per se sufficient reason to oppose. WaltonOne 11:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - I've crossed paths with this editor many times and have never been left with a negative impression. Strong editor. Lara❤Love 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  48. the_undertow talk 06:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support After reviewing track and concerns in previous RFA are no longer valid .Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support - I personally feel that wikipedians should be brutally honest or very "frank" during AFD discussion to flush out any quirks the potential admin may have. With that said, I do not find the civil (AFD) issues a problem here. I see a need for the user to have the mop, keys, and detonator.--I already forgot 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Good work + concerns raised during last RfA taken on board. Húsönd 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. I have heard of you around here, and think you'll make a great admin. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support east.718 at 05:59, 11/1/2007
  55. Support I don't see abuse from the tools forthcoming from Lradrama. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - all looks fine to me. WjBscribe 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
For starters, Lradrama recently strongly opposed a user who had been here for less than three months, but had submitted an RfA in good-faith, and a "strong oppose" seems bitey to me. In part of that oppose, Lradrama said "No-way! I suggest you withdraw, seriously.", which was entirely unhelpful. I am, however, glad that Lradrama removed the exclamation mark, but the rest of the oppose was still quite harsh. Secondly, during Earle Martin's RfA, he opposed the candidate for possibly "not needing the tools", and for a low edit count. He also had a complaint when other users had gone and responded to his oppose. Finally, this AfD edit is also highly worrying. Changed to support Acalamari 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Earle Martin AfD. He didn't go running to a noticeboard, he simply commented in the discussion section - there doesn't seem to be anything to be concerned about with that one. What's wrong with the AfD comment? A lot of people were sick and tired of the Harry Potter articles being nominater for deletion, in fact, it got a little silly - there doesn't seem to be anything incivil about the comment. Maybe one line of the newbie RfA was a little bitey, but at least it gave some advice to the candidate, unlike many comments at newbie RfA's. Sorry Acalamari, I don't really understand this oppose. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
To be quite fair, Acalamari, you've mischaracterized Lradrama's oppose in the Earle Martin RfA. Reading the link that you called a "not needing the tools" oppose, it's clear that the major point is that Lradrama is concerned that Earle wasn't very active on Wikipedia. And although that Harry Potter keep rationale is admittedly weak, the result of the AfD was ultimately keep, so Lradrama's opinion was poorly phrased but ultimately well-founded. A Traintalk 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, to be really fair, I don't think Acalamari mischaracterized Lradrama's oppose. All three points of Lradrama's oppose at the Earle Martin RfA struck me as singularly silly, especially the bit "over 2,083 edits should really have been achieved by now". About the complaint saying I and user:Rspeer made an "uproar"; I guess I was a bit curt in my response and my edit summary, so I don't blame him entirely. I was just irked a bit by the oblique references. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I was wrong with the Harry Potter debates: I was not aware of the multiple AfD'ing of them, and the affect on community patience at the time, so I've struck that part of my oppose out and I do apologize for that. My other concerns remain though: with the Goodshoped3511s RfA, it was the "strong oppose" (which I believe was unnecessary; new/ish users need advice, not the impression that they've done something wrong) combined with some of wording of the oppose (such as what I quoted above, plus the "a big no" said in the oppose), that came across to me as bitey, and overall, not very helpful (though the part about getting an admin coach was a good suggestion, I will agree). With the Earle Martin RfA, Twooars has said what I wanted to say with Lradrama's oppose there, and I have little more to add to that. Acalamari 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
One bad comment with over 7000 other contributions doesn't strike me as a very good reason to oppose. He has shown on numerous occasions his ability to stay calm and help newbies. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As I have said before, with newbies, I am always pleased to offer help and advice, something I have done with vandals who have seemed intent on messing me around, so I would like to stress I had nothing against the candidate. It was just that the RfA wasn't going to pass, and the best option would be to withdraw. Maybe I worded it slightly harshly and I regret that, as I regret the moment with TwoOars, which, if I remember correctly, I accepted that my standards can vary from others, apologised for seeming harsh and the situation was resolved. I have spent a real lot of my time on Wikipedia dishing out help and offers for advice on many a new users talkpage, and seeming harsh on my part is wholly unintentional. Lradrama 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, looking at that Strong Oppose, it does seem harsh. It looks awful actually. A big regret, sorry about that. Lradrama 19:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Geez, there but for the grace of God, etc. . . If that's all it takes to get bounced I suspect very few of us would measure up. ;) Ronnotel 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Fly-by AfD commenting[1], bursts of fly-by RfA participation with sometimes only 2 minutes between comments (remarkably even on some oppose comments) [2], [3], [4], [5]. RfA comments like: "if this passes I going to have to seriously gather my thoughts, for obvious reasons. :-S". Removing doubtful comment rather than striking it: "To me, this RfA should have just as much chance of passing as that of Samulili, but looking at the votes on each, things seem to have taken an unfair turn of events :-(". Borderline personal attack in oppose comment (Captmondo RfA): "I don't mean or want to be harsh, but considering the large amount of time you've been active on Wikipedia, not so much has been achieved in that time." Plain weird oppose (EarleMartin RfA): "Are you really active enough to become an admin? The above comment and sifting through your contribs and your edit count makes me wonder if you actually do need the tools? You've bee active for a vast amount of time, and over 3,000 edits should really have been achieved by now." A little too hot-headed (Earle Martin RfA)[6]. Unfriendly and unhelpful pile-on oppose: "Strong #Oppose - No-way! I suggest you withdraw, seriously. There is very, very little experience gathered here and you'[ve only been active for less than 3 months. A big no. Go out there and get some real experience, get an admin coach, withdraw this and try again in a few months." One of his RfA criteria is :"The user should have over at least 400 edits in Wikipedia / Wikiproject space, or near enough." - when Lradrama him/herself has just above that. At the same time, s/he opposed several users for too low WP space participation, even some who went on to succeed. Also, although I know that the "drama" part of your username is related to some thespian activity or interest, I still think that the username is not ideal for an admin, one of whose jobs is to minimize "drama". But that's not the reason I oppose. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting and valid concerns raised. I believe that after the above discussion, Lradrama will be much more careful in how he words comments at RfAs, particularly those of oppose opinion. As for the "drive-by" opinions of AfDs, I have to say that I've often gone to the AfD page, and gone down the list, and in the space of mere minutes, I can find several to give a definitive opinion on without much research needed. There are a significant number of AfDs that are really non-controversial, don't take much time to look into, and can be done quite quickly, so I'm not sure (without actually going through each of those AfDs, which I did not do) if this is something that's any indication of improper activity. Also, while it isn't my own style, there are some editors who go through all RfAs every week in the TangoBot table, research all of them, and then offer their opinions on each one all at once. Again I'm not sure this is an unreasonable thing to do. I cannot speak for how Lradrama did it, of course, but I am just mentioning that I do know other editors who do things this way. As for the name, that's really interesting, as I never even saw the word "Drama" in his name. Might be just that I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and my brain is quite crowded with acronyms, but I read it as "L-RAD"ama, lol. Anyway, I commend you for the obvious time and effort that went in to your comment, and you do raise some valid points, that only can be explained by Lradrama, of course, but I am confident that Lradrama would be quite careful, if he had the tools, and would use caution and care when dealing with AfDs. Ariel♥Gold 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say that the comments like ...taking an unfair turn of events... and something about gathering my thoughts were due to me misreading a person's RfA and mistaking it for a shocking contrast. I thought two RfAs in a similar state were both going in completely different directions, but I was wrong because I misread a few things. I felt a bit daft and discussed the matter with Anonymous Dissident after I realised my mistake. But thankyou for bringing things like this to my attention again because, one can learn from one's mistakes and concentrate on ironing them out in the future. Also, this is the second time my username has raised issues with another user when considering me for a suitable admin - it is merely a name that represents the real-life me. It is the initials of my real name with the addition of my favourite real-life hobby, college subject and carreer aspiration. I think people pick up on the negative connotations that the term 'drama' has in Wikipedia, maybe because it creates images of editor conflict and such. If it is necessary, I'll change it. Lradrama 17:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral, leaning towards support. This user is a good user, but this strong oppose comment left by Lradrama doesn't seem nice to me. If I were User:Goodshoped35110s, then I would feel bad, especially with the comment No-way. I suggest you withdraw, seriously. and A big no. Go out there, which would really dishearten me. NHRHS2010 talk 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Cutting off Lradrama's sentence part way through serves to put a negative spin on what he said (I'll of course assume this was unintentional.) Compare "Go out there", which might imply he was telling someone to leave, with "Go out there and get some real experience, get an admin coach, withdraw this and try again in a few months." Picaroon (t) 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    If I had an RfA, my feelings will be really hurt if someone strongly opposed me with the reason "A big no" or "No-way, I suggest you withdraw, seriously". NHRHS2010 talk 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    You miss the point. I'm not defending his comment, which does seem overly harsh. I'm saying that your decision to cut him off mid-sentence distorted the meaning. Picaroon (t) 22:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's just that I saw that strong oppose that Lradrama once made, and I was shocked about it. Anyways, he said that he was sorry, so I changed the neutral. NHRHS2010 talk 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - For similar reasons as NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs). I don't think this is necessarily an oppose reason, and the user might certainly do well with the tools, but I don't wish to support in light of above comments. My apologies, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  3. Changed from oppose. I take it you are aware of the concerns and will do your best to avoid such situations in the future. Good luck. — Dorftrottel⁠ 10:41, 28 October 2007 (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.