Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Max Naylor 2

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] Max Naylor

Final: (30/15/5); ended 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Max Naylor (talk · contribs) - I joined Wikipedia on 25 November 2004. First of all, I began very minor edits and started expansion of the Rainham, London article, my hometown. Since then, I have expanded the article thoroughly. Lately, I have been making larger contributions in the form of article and template creation, and I plan to actively carry on with this in the future. I have self-nominated for adminship for a second-time; after some constructive feedback from my first RfA I feel that I have improved enough to once again be eligible. Max Naylor Max Naylor 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to help with general article maintenance, article deletion and so forth. Many times I have seen redundant articles on Wikipedia and wished that I could do something to clean up the disconnected or irrelevant articles. Whenever I spot an error or layout issue on a page, I edit the page, even if it’s just a minor spelling error or a misplaced punctuation mark.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have greatly expanded the Rainham, London article, which is now comprehensive and fairly well referenced. I intend to finish referencing in the next few weeks, after which I will put the article up for good article status for the third time. After each good article review, I have improved the article according to the criteria and now I believe the article is ready for GA status.

I have expanded the Icelandic language article, indeed it is one of my areas of interest; as a result of this expansion I have created the Icelandic grammar, Icelandic vocabulary and Linguistic purism in Icelandic articles. I have also created the Icelandic language navbox. I have incrementally expanded the main Icelandic language article as my knowledge of the language improves. I also recently drastically improved and reorganised WP:ICELAND’s main page, and now I am an active participant and proponent of the project.

In addition, I have expanded Aqua (user interface) article and created BT Home Hub, resolution independence, Template:Biome, Template:Infobox Online music service and Template:Passports.

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 not really been involved in any edit conflicts per se, the only bone of contention that I have come across is the uploading of images that can’t really be claimed under fair use—issues which I have been able to resolve. However, that is not say that I would be unable to deal with conflicts in the future; I will try to see both sides of the argument and will ask the opinions of other contributors so that a compromise or agreement can be reached.
Q: Could you then give us examples of where you came closest to being involved in conflict, or where you saw possible conflict coming and avoided it?

Optional Question from Black Harry

4 Do you think you addressed the concerns in your first RfA (Your lack of Experience)? Do you think that this has a better chance of passing than the first one? And why do you want to become an administrator so much?
A: I feel that I have addressed the concerns from my first RfA; I have returned after a few months of persistent editing as was requested before, and I have been involved in pending good article and featured article nominations, as was also requested. I hope that this RfA will succeed; I don’t see any reason why it should not if the concerns before were addressed. I don’t have a dying need to become a sysop, I just feel that I could help Wikipedia more given the tools. That said, however, please feel free to tell me if I need more experience in certain areas; I am always willing to improve.
Not to anger you or anything like that, but its only a month and a half, not a few months. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from G1ggy

5 Could you please expand on your question 1 answer? Which areas, specifically, do you intend to work in, and why?
A:Specifically: deletion and revertion (is that a word? :D). When working in WP:ICE, I often find articles in need of vandalism revertion; and of course all over Wikipedia; but I find that this process is often awkward, and if there are multiple spurts all over the article, finding the last good revision in the history and saving over it is an awkward process. Speedy and article deletion is also another tool that I will use often. I also feel that WikiProject Iceland needs an adminstrator for general sysop tasks.
Comment: revertion is not a word. reversion is the word you are looking for. :)- TwoOars 10:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from Wikihermit

6 What does IAR mean to you and when should it be used?
A:Basically, use common sense. If a rule is preventing you from doing a task, for example writing a completely NPOV article on a topic which clearly needs to have a bias (take baked beans for example, a topic which is quintessentially English; I do not see how it could be written taking into account a worldwide view). Perhaps this is just my own POV coming through, but I would request the opinions of other users before going ahead and breaking the rules.

Optional question by AldeBaer

7 Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: Well, where do I start? There are many great pages on Wikipedia, here are some of my favourites:
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedians: I love this page. I think it sums up, very realistically, the qualities of the typical Wikipedia editor, in a light-hearted and funny article that I think we should all read once in a while when we get a bit hot-headed. Oftentimes I see people getting frustrated over stupid—yet understandably relevant—points, for example the dispute over here over a simple greeting.
  • Typographical ligature: I’m a design obsessive and this is a comprehensive and well-written article on a topic that is overlooked by so many modern typographers. I’ve made a few contributions to it myself.
  • Iceland and its subpages: Didn’t anyone tell you I’m obsessed with Iceland? ;-) Well, I am, and I find this article and its related pages a fascinating read. I especially like pages about the icelandic language, obviously, and especially History of the Icelandic language which has just been translated from the Italian Wikipedia. There, I said it, I’m a geek. LOL. :D

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Max Naylor Requests for adminship/Max Naylor 2

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Max Naylor before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Now -- I could be wrong, but this is starting to look like a WP:SNOW. Just my opinion. Anonymous Dissident Utter 10:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're wrong :) Although he has some support, this time the opposition have come up with "doesn't need tools" - despite the fact he's been here even longer than me, despite the fact he's trustworthy, and despite the fact we need more admins. Sigh... Majorly (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok then, if you think so. You are right, of course. We need admins, and the majority of the arguments made by the opposers are rather insubstantial. I guess I meant that the raw supports/opposers/neutrals were looking a bit WP:SNOWish. Anonymous Dissident Utter 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Things are obviously looking a little different now. Good luck Max. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 01:08, 16 June 2007 UTC)
  • OMG! Editcounters!! :P —— Eagle101Need help? 16:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support. What is going on here? Over two thousand edits improving articles on Icelandic grammar aren't enough? If you wait until he has another two thousand edits on Icelandic grammar, would that convince you that he would make a good admin? Maybe you are afraid that as an admin he will go insane and delete any article not written in Icelandic, and are waiting for signs that didn't show up in the past three years and two-thousand edits he has spent here? If you look at RFA's discussion page a moment, you will notice that we need more admins very badly; "doesn't need it enough" and "waiting for power level to reach NINE THOUSAAAAND" are not valid reasons to deny us another much-needed admin. --Aquillion 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Looks good to me, nothing indicates that the person will abuse, and I like self-noms better. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Why not? This user has enough main space edits, and I would trust them with the tools. ~ Wikihermit 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. He's been around long enough, and proven he isn't a fly-in-for-the-power-grab game-player. Enough experience and common sense. Daniel 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Candidate shows no neediness for the tools, which is one good reason to support. —AldeBaer 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support after examination of their edits. Good contributor. A specialist editor and long time contributor who would not abuse the tools. No evidence of incivility. - TwoOars 06:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I don't think he'll mess up. We have many admins who never use tools - do we not trust them? Should they be admins? There isn't a limit on how many admins we can have. And to those who think he's inexperienced, if he needs help, I'm sure he can just ask a more experienced admin (I'd be very willing to guide him ^_^). Majorly (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per lack of a convincing reason why not to. Shame on the edit counters. Riana ⁂ 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Per Riana. Pedro |  Chat  15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support-He has over 2000+ edits, and almost three years experience, it is time he becomes an admin! Politics rule 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - plenty of experience, and the answers seem fine. I supported his previous RfA, anyway. Waltontalk 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support agree with Majorly and Riana. Acalamari 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Per Majorly and Riana. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support based on contributions. Checking over Max Naylor's contributions, he's made extensive edits in his area of expertise (Iceland), and his work there involves communicating well with other users, organizing a WikiProject and a newsletter, contributing images (including high-quality SVGs), working with templates, and so on. My only criticism is that he should use edit summaries more often, which would make it easier to tell what he's working on. Now, some other reasons to support:
    • No neediness for tools. (What a great phrase!)
    • Three years of experience. Incidentally, in those three years he's accumulated a perfectly reasonable edit count of 2000+, which of course isn't influencing my vote, but makes one doubt the sanity of those who are opposing based on edit count.
    • 10 opposers, so far, have had the chance to give legitimate reasons why Max Naylor would be untrustworthy and come up with jack all.
    rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per Majorly. After a careful review of the candidate's contributions, he appears trustworthy and ready for the mop. I'm confident he will use it well. --Spike Wilbury 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I feel that it is time to give him the additional tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I think this user is a good candidate for adminship and can be trusted. Sure the counts are low for some but I think we are able to judge safely that this candidate does not represent a threat. JodyB talk 12:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support -- why not? The opposers are picking on what he hasnt done, and not focusing on what he has done. We need more admins anyway. Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 01:11, 16 June 2007 UTC)
  19. Support - I agree with much of the above. --健次(derumi)talk 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - great editor with a lot of knowledge. I wish you good luck Max. E talk 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - After reading comments and more further reviewing the candidate, I realized that my oppose !vote was a poor decision. Best of luck. --tennisman 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. What Majorly said. --Rory096 23:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Trustworthy user with many good edits, more than capable of using the mop. Elmo 08:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support per Majorly, I think Max can help us all if given the tools, whereas he sounds dedicated. --wpktsfs 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - We need more admins and I don't believe that your previous failure for adminship should be used against you now despite how recent it was.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Supportper Majorly--BozMo talk 14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support per Majory and Rspeer and inasmuch as I think it to be quite clear that the net effect on the project of Max's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I believe that Max Naylor is trustworthy. --S.Örvarr.S 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Last minute support. Clearly a good editor, no reason not to support.-gadfium 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose your last RfA ended on May 1 of this year. I think as a matter of procedure four months should pass between one RfA and another by the same candidate. And his answer to question one describes exclusively tasks which every user can do. Plus his experience may be a little lacking BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Four months! Please tell me you are kidding... Majorly (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    In general that's how long user wait before reapplying. However thats not my only concern. Theres his low edit count too. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    And also, the original RfA was 17 opposed with 7 supports (plus 1 moral support). Perhaps if he had come closer to 75% support I'd have less problem with this. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    The comments spurring off of this one should be interesting... Cool Bluetalk to me 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    So basically what you've come up with is he has requested before and his edit count is too low. Please can you tell me what the minimum is? I've searched, but cannot find a number anywhere. Oh, and if there's an actual reason this user shouldn't be promoted, please say it. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    What if I don't like the answers to his questions? Would that bother you too? There is no policy about how many edits are required, however many users use edit counts to determine experience. So stop playing these little games with people who oppose RfA's for reason's you disagree with. At least I'm not doing the self-nom thing. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Not as much no. I often oppose for the question answers, but making up a silly edit count criteria is just pointless. Majorly (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Your experience-determiner is broken if it rejects a candidate with over 2000 edits and 3 years of experience. Why do you feel the need to make uninformed votes on every RfA and then accuse everyone else of "playing silly games"? If you didn't like the answers to his questions, you should have said so and explained why, instead of doing your best to turn RfA into a penis size competition. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    First off, that comment is borderline uncivil. Secondly, you assume that every decision I make at an RfA is uniformed. I can assure you that in no more than five RfAs in which I have participated has consensus gone the opposite way of my vote. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    How long do you think a candidate has to wait before reapplying Majorly? I'm not on anyone's side here, its just a question. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please can we have this discussion on the RFA talk page and not in the middle of Max Naylor's RFA? —Gaff ταλκ 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Agree that this discussion should be cleared up elsewhere. However I do want to know right here how long Majorly thinks a candidate should wait to reapply. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    We'll keep all discussion right here. I think it depends why they didn't pass. I don't have a set criteria - however, Black Harry has opposed because of it, regardless of anything else which I think is unfair. Majorly (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Black Harry, if you are opposing due to a recent RfA failure, does that indicate that you think he's still not ready, and hasn't learned from his previous RfA? I don't see any other reasons for opposing based on a recent RfA; after all, there are no guidelines in relation to this. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    First off, a month and a half is just too short, because the main issue which led to his first RfA's failure was lack of experience: and you can't gain much experience in a month and a half. And in question one he didn't express enough of a need for tools, but I didn't give this reason initially so I wouldn't give the impression that I was "killing" the candidate, but since questions were raised about my opposition I amended my initial statement. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Woh woh, woh. I didn’t want to cause an argument. Max Naylor 07:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    (EC, reply to Black Harry) I don't think a month and a half is too short, but it depends on what you did in that time. I agree in your opposition, I just think you might need to have another look over your reasons a bit (your other point, about not needing the tools, is something I agree with). - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 07:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Based on review of your contributions, I think you're a fine editor. But your answer to Q1 suggests that you want to be an admin to delete articles. That makes me uncomfortable given your apparent lack of involvement in the Article for deletions process. Feel free to correct me if I am missing something, but admin/sysop is sort of like being a janitor and cleaning up messes after the community has come to consensus through AFD (for articles) or a series of vandal warnings, RFC, etc (for problem users). I don't really see that you have been very involved in these procedures, so its hard to understand that you are ready to take the reigns. —Gaff ταλκ 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, contributions not admin stuff. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Changed to Support - Low edit count, low Wiki-space (Admin-type) edits, not the highest of edit summary usage (unless the tool is displaying in a way that shows it skewed), all point to an oppose. --tennisman 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Above this RfA, it says, "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Max Naylor before commenting." Something similar appears above every RfA, in fact. I don't think looking at a few numbers and jumping to a conclusion is a thorough review at all. Also, calling 2018 edits a "low edit count" disruptively contributes to edit count inflation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose I like to see someone who participates in more Wikipedia related articles (or discussion), sadly, this editor is not one of those people.--trey 04:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Just too little experience, but keep working and you'll get there! Jmlk17 06:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose - Although you did have a "spurt" of activity around December 2006 (126 edits), your real activity seems to have started in February 2007. I think you should wait an other couple of months. In addtion, Q1 doesn't indicate any real likelyhood of needing to be an admin. Od Mishehu 07:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose (moved from neutral) - After taking a closer look at the candidate's work, I really don't see a need for the tools. This, combined with virtually no admin tasks performed (there are only 3 AfD edits in his project space edits) worries me, and I am unable to support. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 07:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, reluctantly. Seems like a sound editor, but I'm concerned about his understanding of policy. More interaction through the Wikipedia talk namespace would definitely be helpful here, in particular the answer to question 6 confused me a bit. WP:NPOV has nothing to do with representing a worldwide view of every topic, it has to do with conflicting views, regardless of what part of the world they come from. I very much doubt anyone has conflicting views on baked beans, so there is no bias there to be biased towards. - Zeibura Talk 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - due to the fact that the answer to Q1 describes things that everybody can do, the clarification mentions 'revertion' (sic) (which everyone can do, assisted by scripts if wanted to make it easier), and deletion (few XfD contributions don't lead me to believe that the editor is well-versed in deletion criteria). The contributions are great, however it would be nice to see examples of what the editor wants to do as an administrator, and examples of where the editor has contributed in that area. PGWG 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I accept absolutely that any comment based on edit count is going to attract flak. But we have only submitted edits to go on. If we are going to judge this user's competence in handling admin-related issues, then we can judge this only on the edits in WP:NAMESPACE. There is no other yardstick, unless we adopt the philosophy that adminship is no big deal, and give it to everyone, which I do not recommend. This user does not have enough edits in WP:NAMESPACE to engender confidence in admin abitities.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    You get a Tommy Point for that one my fellow contributor. You know you're gonna get ripped for it, but you say it anyway, because you believe it, much as I do. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 23:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Congrats Anthony! You're the first admin to oppose! :) Let's see... I'll ask the question again. What number were you looking for? Yes, I agree we can judge what he would be like from his project space edits... but you're doing it completely wrong. You've simply taken the number. You've not looked at what the edis are. And proof of that is when you say "This user does not have enough edits in WP:NAMESPACE to engender confidence in admin abitities". At least give a number so that future candidates can work to your requirements. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    Majorly, you know perfectly well that i am not going to give an exact answer to your question. No-one would. I am saying that 2,042 total edits, wiki edits 181 and wiki-talk 25 in total does not indicate an in-depth knowledge of wikipolicy. I am only one person - you do not have to take notice of my opinion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    Course it does. Are you telling me every who became an admin with less does not know wikipolicy? Majorly (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    Majorly, you know perfectly well that I am not saying that. Now come on. The whole purpose and function of the RfA page is for the accumulation of opinion. I have stated mine. I do not ask you, or anyone else, to agree with it. But arguing with it here is functionless. This page is intended to provide a body of opinion from which the bureaucrats can evolve a consensus. My thoughts are as stated. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Too few edits or too few weeks between previous RFA don't matter so much to me. But the responses to Q1 and the clarification in Q5 are a bit of a concern. I'm not convinced this user understands what admins do and therefore I can't say whether or not he'd do a good job at it. Almost everything this user wants to do per Q1 and Q5 can be accomplished with Twinkle. --JayHenry 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose for low edit count, insufficient edit summaries, lack of variety in Wikipedia activities. Doczilla 07:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Low Wikipedia-space edits and too recent to the last RfA. Captain panda 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. I don't see any negatives about this candidate (such as incivility or a history of edit-warring), but I do see a lack of positives: too little experience of XfD to justify deletion tools, and too little exposure to the more conflictual areas of wikipedia. I hope that I would be able to support a further nomination in the future, but I think that this renomination is premature. May Naylor is clearly a valued editor, and I hope he will keep up his fine contributions, but he hasn't persuaded me that he is ready for the mop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Candidate has not yet demonstrated competence in an admin-related areas, and is thus unready for the mop. Xoloz 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Meh. The candidate seems productive but a few things catch my eye.
    • One - Wikispace edits as follow:
      • 35 WikiProject Iceland/leftpanel
      • 12 Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive
      • 12 WikiProject Iceland
      • 9 Featured article candidates/Renewable energy in Iceland
      • 8 Requests for adminship/Max Naylor
      • 8 WikiProject Iceland/rightpanel
      • 8 WikiProject Iceland/Template directory
      • 6 Translation/Millau Viaduct
      • 5 Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive/Removed
      • 4 Blank maps
      • 4 WikiProject Iceland/Assessment
      • 4 WikiProject Iceland/Members
      • 4 WikiProject Iceland/Outreach/Newsletter June 2007
      • 3 Bot requests
      • 3 WikiProject Iceland/Outreach/Welcome
        • It's fantastic that you're involved in WikiProjects, but no admin tasks on here.
    • Two - I hate to say this but Q1 is pushing me in the wrong direction. It shows a lack of experience, and potentially, a lack for the need of the tools. Sorry, but keep trying. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Your answer to question one is quite simple - every editor can do as you describe, admin powers not required. If you have legitimate grounds for marking articles for deletion then you can either use the appropriate CSD tag or take the article to AfD, using your business case to illustrate just where it fails the notability criteria to refer to the relevant policies and guidelines. Keep working away at admin-related tasks in addition to your regular contributions and try again in three or four months' time. (aeropagitica) 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Leaning towards oppose. The current answers to questions are weak, but the answer to Q5 may change my stance. Also, please note that I am not opposing due to edit count, since you have been here for many months. You just don't seem to have done admin-ish things in that time. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Moved to oppose.
  3. neutral - strongly agree with the comments of Cool Blue and aeropagitica listed immediately above. seems as if the candidate is contributing to articles but has not done enough in terms of "admin tasks" to warrant the tools. but definitely keep trying! ChicagoPimp 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - You really seem like a sincere editor. However, in reading through the questions (including the oft-referenced #1), you don't seem to have a lot of experience with the project-space part of Wikipedia. By being involved with the various discussions, you not only show interest in such discussions, you also can help show your knowledge/understanding of guidelines/policy and how such applies. You mention (I think) that you would like to help out with WP:AFD. The first step would be to comment on nominated articles there. Experience in a process may be helpful when closing discussions within that process. Anyway, not enough to oppose, but not enough to support either. Hence neutral, though hoping you keep going and growing : ) - jc37 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral -Candidate is a great person, who has really focused on the Iceland part of Wikipedia. The Icelandic grammar article is a thing to behold (and given that there are only maybe 300,000 native speakers of the language, we should be thankful). But I doubt that Iceland articles are all that contentious (very interesting however), so without a broader editing (over a longer time), it's hard to tell how they will respond and what they can offer. But if the candidate became an editor, it wouldn't be the worse thing ever, but I think they should wait a few more months. Orangemarlin 05:06, 16 June 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.