Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luna Santin

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] Luna Santin

Ended 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Luna Santin (talk · contribs) – Luna Santin is a fellow Wikipedian from San Francisco, California. A civil, respectful and intelligent editor who has amassed in excess of 7500 edits in a period of three months. Areas which he has been involved in include:

I've also seen him spend time on various article talk pages resolving disputes in a civil and rational way. An extensive survey of his edits has made me feel sure that he has done well as a user and will do well as an admin. Luna is a self-confessed WikiGnome and has wikified many articles to date. In my opinion, Wikipedia will be a better place with him having the tools. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words; I accept and look forward to feedback from the community. Luna Santin 12:17, 3 September 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 plan to answer {{unblock}} requests, both good and bad, to patrol {{prod}} and close AfDs. I'm a regular contributor at CfD, and I have no reason to expect that will change. CSD will likewise be on the list. Non-admin backlogs I already contribute to include {{helpme}} requests and the wikify backlog. If the community grants me the opportunity, I also plan to help out at AIV and similar tasks -- before you groan and say we have enough of that, let me point out that you probably haven't been on around 9:00 to 14:00 UTC, when the admins are fewer and further between, and the AIV backlog sometimes extends for hours. Every user deserves a second chance, even a third, but there generally should be at least one admin watching over AIV in the event that the vandals picked tonight for some fun. I always try to take more out of a backlog than I put into it, and I'd like the opportunity to help out with some more.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am, I think, most known for two things: cleaning up vandalism and helping new users. For at least a month, now, I've been trying to hunt down something to turn into an FA; until I find something suitable, my finest article is probably California High School Exit Exam. I've welcomed something in the vicinity of 700 users to Wikipedia, frequently helping them out with later requests, and also helped to ease our steep learning curve at the help desk, new contributors' help page, or by responding to {{helpme}}s. I've wikified more articles than I've tagged for wikification, and plan to keep it that way. I'm a founding member of WikiProject Stub Removal, which aims to trim down stub categories to the point of being more useful, and I'm a regular contributor at 3O, helping to calm down disputes and trim down the backlogs at MedCab or even ArbCom. I've helped good users to formulate unblock requests and get other needed admin attention, on IRC. As I mentioned above, I also participate in CfD and AfD, with somewhere around 700 Wikipedia namespace edits, I think, between those and other policy-related discussions.
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: Ah, conflict. Oddly enough, my very first edit as an anon user was at AfD. As I mentioned 3O, it led me into what's probably been my largest content dispute to date, at Libertarianism. See Talk:Libertarianism/Archive9 for details -- in a nutshell, there was a POV dispute over versions of a particular paragraph in the "controversies among libertarians" section of the article. I did my best to propose a compromise version, and (if I recall correctly) all but one editor ended up agreeing to that version. I did my part to keep the dispute on talk pages, and never reverted that I can remember, but unfortunately one user resorted to disruptions and personal attacks even over a week into the dispute, constantly turning down attempts to request outside opinions or mediation, and was eventually blocked to 24 hours, per a report at PAIN; shortly after that, socks began joining the dispute, and eventually User:Irgendwer was indefinitely blocked. I regret that the situation went that far, but I also believe the user was being disruptive. I tried my best to assume good faith and work things out.
More recently, the userbox I'd created for WikiProject Stub Removal was deleted by User:Cyde; after a note to his talk page was left unanswered (he continued editing), I posted to DRV and left another note. The discussion at DRV nearly unanimously supported overturning the speedy deletion, and it was overturned by User:AmiDaniel, and then redeleted by Cyde (still without comment at the time). I unfortunately left a bit of a fiery note at Cyde's talk page, at which point I discovered that he'd (also unfortunately) managed to miss all of my prior messages. We apologized to each other, and continued going about our business. See his talk page here, and the DRV discussion here. My biggest regret is that I wasn't more civil towards Cyde, and I've learned from that.
Beyond that, I occasionally get into "disputes" helping new users -- often "vandals" are simply new users experimenting or trying to figure things out. When reasonable people are willing to talk things over, a solution can usually be reached, and I'm glad to say I've experienced that on more than a few occassions, while patrolling recent changes.

Question from  Netsnipe  ►  13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that in the three months of vandal fighting since you've been here that you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and your involvement on the Administrators' noticeboards so far has been small. Can you provide any examples where you think you've been challenged? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Wikipedia should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?
Hmm, a fair question. I have dealt with some sockpuppets, mainly at the Libertarianism dispute, in a few AfDs, and with some vandals. I'm a healthy enough person that I can take a step back and breathe, when the situation calls for it. In one example, a clever vandal was reporting the currently active RC patrollers to AIV; as a matter of principle, I refused to remove myself from the listing, instead trusting that the responding admin would check contribs and act appropriately. A minute or two later, I was {{indefblocked-vandal}} (see block log). I got up and away from my computer for a minute or two, composed myself, and came back to compose an unblock request, including diffs, contribs links, and evidence -- I had already formed a plan I knew would work. Before I could compose the full request, however, the blocking admin realized their mistake and unblocked me. I left them what I hope was a nice note, and a reply later that was pretty much the end of it. Likewise, I have familiarity dealing with some of the persistent vandals we face here; no need to name names, I think, especially since I've become a believer in WP:DENY.
Now, I think I can display my approach to solving tough problems with my efforts at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 alumni link (or some of my user talk messages involved in the same case, between new users, experienced users, and sysops). Some problems, ideally most problems, can be solved through discussion. Some can't, and I'm prepared to accept that, as well. I'm a patient person; I need not "have my way" right away, as I'd say is demonstrated by my refusal to propogate a revert war during the dispute at Libertarianism.
It's true that I don't have a lot of edits at AN or AN/I. In part this is to avoid cluttering up those already-busy boards. When I do contribute, I believe I do so with value -- take this as an example. A project I'm involved with was listed at AN, ANI, MFD, and WT:AFD, there were veiled threats of banning and mass reverts, and I was calm (at least, I think).
I've been opped at a few forums and chat channels, before, so the experience would hardly be entirely new. In general, with my life experience as a whole, I can tell you upfront that I have a strong tolerance for inconvenience, problems, and stress -- I'm very good at calming myself down. In particular, I was once in charge of nearly 60 teenage boys, aged from 11 to 18, for a week. I've been a lifeguard in charge of critical, split-second decisions, in charge of keeping people alive. I've worked as staff at a leadership training camp, again in charge of large numbers of people, in charge of resolving sometimes violent disputes, sometimes involving people with knives. I'm pretty sure I can handle the interweb. :)


Question from Andeh

5. Could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and any AfD discussions you've been involved in, created AfDs should still be on your watchlist. Thanks.
A: To be honest, most of my deletion nominations in the past month or so have been successful speedies and prods, which unfortunately makes them tricky to link to. Demonstrative AfD discussions would include Bricemanning, Erik Widman, Chris DeJoseph, Man-Faye (2nd nom), Chiricheppu, Islamophobia (3rd nom), OMHPC, January Malkus, List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nom), and nominations include Blend corp, Blades of Aason, and Branden Rooney. I also fix broken noms from time to time. While not technically on AfD, I sometimes leave new users notes like this. I can't find the diff(s), at the moment, but User:JoanneB and I once talked a pageblanking new user through the prod/AfD process, effectively reforming their behavior.
I've also participated quite a bit at CfD. My first nomination there, Omega models, eventually involved tagging somewhere around 100 categories (fun!). Other demonstrative discussions would, I think, include People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, Vespa scooter riders, and especially Wikipedians by organization and similar discussions.
(Also, that seemed to be question five, rather than six, unless I missed one somewhere?)


Comments
Final tally: (97/4/4)
Support
  1. Beat-the-nominator-support - Very good editor, great vandal fighting and such. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - glad to be one of the first here. MER-C 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong support keep up the level of contribution. We need more dedicated users (and admins for that matter) such as you. Good luck! --Alex (talk here) 12:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - J Ditalk 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - civil, helpful, knowledgeable -- Lost(talk) 12:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per answer to question 1. --james(talk) 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom, good answers to questions, and user's record of contributions in a number of areas. Newyorkbrad 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Helps new users; reports and reverts vandalism; lots of descriptive edit summaries; many additions to user Talk pages; nice user page. Let this editor help with the mop and bucket. (aeropagitica) 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong support - Strongly recommend this user. Has been very helpful helping new users, knows the admin rules inside out and not at all trigger-happy, will make a fine admin. - Tangotango 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Concerned about the short time on wiki, but his contribution record, answers to questions, review of the Talk Libertarianism archive, and general approach suggest nothing to be concerned about. A "no big deal" support. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong support Look at the accolades he's earned, friends he's made "in 3 months." Rama's arrow 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Opposers too picky. User is solid and excellent thus far, and I see no evidence why this will change. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support - trust me guys, fantastic editor with a fantastic attitude that will do us all proud with the tools - Glen 14:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support on wheels!! Solid user, very helpful.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 14:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, great guy. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support due to anwser to question #1 - AIV backlog can get long and unblock is an important part of the vandal-fighting process ST47 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Just met him last night, and was quite impressed after a readthrough of the answers and a lookthrough of the contribs. We need more like this. Antandrus (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Yup. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. -- Steel 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support: Trusted by others to moderate WikiDiscussion Manager and has enough experience on AFD/CSD to make up for his lack of experience on adminstrators' noticeboards apart other than WP:AIV. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Merovingian - Talk 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Looks like an excellent user, though 3 months is a little short compared to most prospective admins. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Moderate Support - I've come across him and found him concerned and helpful. Possibly inexperienced tho. Nigel (Talk) 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Experienced vandal fighter amongst other things, three months is long enough in my opinion. Very strong answers to questions. — FireFox (talk) 19:13, 03 September 2006
  25. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I like the candidate's willingness to watch WP:AIV, as it can never have enough eyes. Helping out with some of the backlogs is great, also, as is his willingness to answer unblock requests; it's very important that these be answered in a timely fashion hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support— The issue should not be how long one has contributed or what specifically has been contributed, but rather whether the editor shows the skills, intellectual scope and predisposition to thoughtfully and successfully handle the admin tools combined with enough Wiki-mileage to understand the pitfalls. The best indicator of future performance is past performance—I’m comfortable that Luna Santin can be trusted to delete, undelete, block, & unblock without abusing these powers—anyone who can survive the Libertarianism discussions without a lingering taint of partisanship and & still wants to be an administrator gets my support. Williamborg (Bill) 20:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. A safe pair of hands. Mike Christie (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support 3 months is quite less, but I have seen that this user is phenomenally active in wiki from my experiences. We need this user to be an admin. --Ageo020 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. G.He 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support per above and personal interaction. AuburnPilot 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support I have seen this user around, I'm certain that he can be trusted with admin tools.--Konstable 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Vandal fighter needs tools abakharev 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. I see a lot of long-time admins on WP:ANI that I have somehow never managed to run into before, and I wondered upon meeting this user if he was another one. ;-) 'Nuff said. Grandmasterka 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  37. Jaranda wat's sup 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  38. Seen this user around, consistently impressed. Support. »ctails!« =hello?= 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. I've seen nothing but good things from this guy. We always need more admins, so I'm pleased to support. alphaChimp laudare 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Can't be too harsh upon time, some of the best admins we have were adminned in about the same time. This user did have me convinced at moments that they were an admin. I see nothing here that will show a complete or any kind of abuse with the tools. Yanksox 04:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Michael 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  42. Strong support will make a fabulous administrator -- Samir धर्म 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support I have only the utmost respect for the candidate. Canadian-Bacon t c e 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support - Seen this user around, everything looks good to me. --WinHunter (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support I see no major concerns here. A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Experienced in a number of areas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Good vandal fighter and a level headed editor. We need more of those as admins. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. DarthVader 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support per answer to Q1. --Nishkid64 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Nominator support added by Aksi great - Nearly Headless Nick
  52. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  53. Opposition is spurious.--SB | T 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Luna Santin looks like a solid, dedicated editor. We need more good admins. I don't see any issues here. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support~Luna was one of the first Wikipedians I interacted with when I became a "real" editor, and I was overwhelmed by his kindness in helping a newbie like myself. Throughout my short time here I've only seen more of the spirit of willing helpfulness. I think he'd make a great admin. —Keakealani •talk•contribs• 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Good vandal fighter Bugtrio 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. Excellent countervandal and a fine all-around contributor. Heimstern Läufer 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. Although short time on Wikipedia, looks dedicated to the project. - Darwinek 23:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Very impressed by answers. - Mike 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Very dedicated to the project Hello32020 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support - a little AWB issue w/ subst has nothing to do w/ adminship -- Tawker 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support A terrific editor who will mop wisely. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support - great vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 07:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  65. Big support -- Szvest 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
  66. Support: We certainly require more new administrators who are honest and unbiased to run the show without bringing into elements of subjectivity to their approach. --Bhadani 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  67. That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  68. There is No Mediation Cabal Support. CQJ 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. RFerreira 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support I've seen this user's work and been impressed. Will make good use of the mop. Gwernol 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
  72. Support 7500+ edits in 3 months? That's twice as many as I've made in 5 months. Experience is not measured solely by calendar time. Also, considering the well-thought through answers, I'm ready to support. --Richard 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support, very active and alert at recent changes monitoring - I'm very disappointed that I didn't notice this RFA until it was 70+ votes in. Kuru talk 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support Great editor to be around, would make superb admin. --CableModem 06:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support, I see no problems. Since when is 3 months considered not enough time? What happened to everyone having a minimum of 3 months, with barely anyone having minimums over that and a few having minimums of less? --Rory096 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  76. Strong Support - I have known Luna San (-tin omitted on IRC, where I first met the candidate, and it stuck) for a while now and have seen some excellent work in CVU, but also an excellent ability to converse with other members. The candidate doesn't strike me as someone to abuse the mop, and we need more good RC patrollers with sysop to handle blocks more effectively. I've seen AIV backlogs caused by none other than the candidate :) Good luck, Luna, not that you'll need it. --Draicone (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support. I can see how the oppose voters might be worried about the time he's been around, but I was nominated after a similar time frame myself and I do think in some cases it can be quite enough, both for the community to assess a candidate and for the candidate to gain the necessary skills and knowledge. I hope but also expect that Luna realises that a lot of learning is done 'on the job' but I expect that he'll do well. --JoanneB 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  78. Strong support - I've seen only good from this user. Metamagician3000 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support Good vandal whacker, good answers to the questions. 3 months is enough for me, especially since this user has show he has a fair understanding of policy. All admins learn while on the job, and I trust that this user will be a quick learner. There are two questions I have asked myself: Do I trust this user with the mop, and do I believe this user will benefit the encyclopedia with the mop? I answered yes to both. KOS | talk 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support Luna already watches and responds to admin notices, such as RFU. Though he can't do anything about it, he rationally explains blocks or expresses opposition while making it clear he's not an admin and does a bang-up job of it. I also know him from #wikipedia-bootcamp, where he has shown sufficient policy knowledge to weild the mop well. Teke (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support per above _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  82. Strong support – but it's all been said already :) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support per above. Very helpful user, great deal of impact on the community despite not being here that long. Three months isn't a reason not to support if he's shown that he's qualified. Of course, it doesn't seem to matter at this point, but I might as well say that. :P --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support-- has done work with WDM. Luna is a careful person, I feel that there is 0% chance of any type of abuse. As "adminship is no big deal", and I can't find any reason that would cause me to oppose other then short time with the project. 3 months to me is plenty of time, especially since Luna-San has shown his use in backlogs and in general knowledge of policy. One fine canidate! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support: good vandal-fighter, and on the flipside great at helping people out. Moppify this guy! -AbsolutDan (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support, will make a good admin --- Deville (Talk) 03:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  87. Late support – Level-headed nice guy and great counter-vandal. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  88. Full Support Excelent User. Works on many many asspects of the Wiki. Hand her the mop Æon Insanity Now!EA! 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support, Per all Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  90. Late "Was counting on camping for #100" Support — Werdna talk criticism 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  91. 9 more til' WP:100 Support, great user, very civil and helpful--TBCTaLk?!? 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support Fits almost all admin criteria like a glove. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support per all the reasons listed above :D DemosDemon 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. I initially wanted to doublecheck on the mediation things the nominator mentioned, but I couldn't contact him, but now I saw Luna have some real nice interactions with newbies. Great user. - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. Very good mediator. enochlau (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. Friendly user, helpful user. Good edit count, good sysop material. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose; misuse of AWB, only been here 3 months.--Andeh 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind elaborate a little bit about the misuse of AWB? --WinHunter (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. See [1] and [2]
Moving to neutral as we need more admins to deal with unblocks and be at AIV. A considerable amount of WP edits are either reverts, substing templates or at cats for deletion, not a huge amount at AfD.--Andeh 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - only three months with the project, and a lack of experience with images --T-rex 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Good editor, but limited time with the project. Espresso Addict 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Good contributor, but still very new. Should wait a bit longer and gain more experience before applying for adminship. Singopo 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose. 3 months look too short.--Jusjih 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. – Chacor 12:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    Is there a reason for this? --Alex (talk here) 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    User has been quick to admit and learn from past mistakes, and I like that, but that's (the past mistakes) turned me off supporting. Take this as a neutral leaning weak support; I see no reason strong enough to oppose. – Chacor 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Very good editor, but I would prefer a few more months of experience as a registered user.-- danntm T C 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, per the reasons under my previous oppose vote above.--Andeh 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, my minimum is 6 months. Looks like a great user, and will surely pass irregardless. Themindset 18:50, 5 September 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.