Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Olessi

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] Olessi

Final (45/5/5) Ended 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Olessi (talk · contribs) – Longtime wikipedia user, with a large number of edits, vandalism reverts, article contributions, and so forth. Rather surprised he's not an admin already. Caliga10 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Olessi 19:16, 19 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As I often edit relatively obscure articles, I am interested in assisting with Special:Unwatchedpages. Vandalism at such articles can go unnoticed for considerable amounts of time, unfortunately. I add relevant categories to articles when possible, and I am therefore also interested with Category:Category needed. Other 'mop and bucket' tasks I can help with include the various WP Commons categories at the Admin backlog and WP:RM. Olessi 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Many articles that I edit were begun by non-native English speakers, so the text can be awkward at times. I try to clean up the spelling, grammar, and layout with most of my edits. Articles that I have substantially tried to improve upon include Frederick II of Prussia, Transylvanian Saxons, Teutonic Knights, German town law, and Neumark (region). I also try to provide sound samples when they might be useful. For those interested, miscellaneous other articles I have helped out on are listed on my information page. I sometimes have been lax with providing references, especially for the town articles (usually translated from the German WP). I apologize for that, and I intend to provide references for them in the near future. Olessi 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
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: Because many of the articles I edit relate to contentious periods/places of history, I have been involved with occasional content disagreements with other editors. However, I always strive to remain level-headed and calm, as revert warring or name-calling always and only escalates a situation. Instead, I take a step back, ask the opinions of other editors, and use Dispute Resolution if need be. Additionally, I offer to act as a mediator and suggest compromises in other content disputes that I come across. I plan to continue using such methods in the future when editing and will seek the advice of other administrators if I have questions relating to admin tools. Olessi 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Mediation question (optional) In your response to the previous question you mentioned that you sometimes offer to act as a mediator. Are there any recent mediation attempts that you are proud of? Do you have any ways of looking at the dispute that help you to work towards consensus without offending either side? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A: Most of the articles I edit are related to Central and Eastern Europe, two regions which I (as a native American from Pennsylvania) have no immediate connections with. I have studied the German language in the past and sometimes interpret the German POV a little more clearly since I can read some of the source materials, but I do not believe that has interfered with my attempts to contribute in a neutral manner. Some examples of my attempts at mediation and calming of situations have been at South Tyrol, the "Polish Cabal" mediation case[1][2], and WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. I try to approach disputes in an impartial manner as if I was an unrelated bystander. When I feel unable to to do so, I have sought outside opinions, such as at Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, or RFC, instead of escalating disputes. Olessi 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)

5. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?
A: My editing intentions are to improve WP's visual appearance and its factual accuracy. Regarding visual appearance, many of my edits already concern categorization and accurate titles for articles I find while browsing. The 'mop and bucket' would assist in these tasks, especially with helping with the WP:RM process and the backlogs. I do not believe that having a 'mop' and bucket' would detract from my namespace edits (which would be my intended use of admin tools), but would instead clear up time for overburdened preexisting admins. Olessi 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

6. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: Ideally, all users would follow common sense while editing; however, one person's view of common sense is not necessarily that of another's. The rules have been developed out of consensus by the editing community and should be followed in the vast majority of cases. When a situation may be resolved by ignoring the rules, the differing editor should be able to convince the community of the validity of his/her actions (convince the community that the change "makes sense"). An acceptable usage of IAR to me would be the early closing of clearly uncontroversial AfDs or RMs (the snowball clause). Generally, I support "process" over "policy"; not following the rules may lead to loose cannon editors or those out to prove a point. To me, it is important that a project as large as Wikipedia has rules accepted and followed by the majority of its community. Olessi 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: Blocks are used to protect the project, not to punish people, so blocks out of retribution are not acceptable. If someone is serially damaging Wikipedia and all other intervention attempts have been unsuccessful, the Arbitration Committee and Mr. Wales may intervene with user accounts or the abuser's internet service provider may be alerted. Olessi 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
8. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?
A: A sense of humor is important to have, but it has its time and place. Letting off steam and joking around can be helpful on talk pages; some humor makes me laugh every time I encounter them. However, practical jokes on articles are inexcusable. Olessi 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Gryffindor (talk · contribs)

9. What is your favourite movie and why?
10. And your favourite music star?
General comments

Olessi's editcount summary stats as of 17:38, October 21 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 17:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • Comment. I'd suggest those who oppose the nomination on the "has not warned vandals" ground to reconsider their position. Do you really want to loose a potentially valuable and so much needed admin only because he has not warned vandals in the past ? This can be so easily remedied and Olessi already declared to do this in the future, so what your reason, really ? --Lysytalk 07:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Historically, yes. It has been taken as lack of experience in the area for which the tools are requested. However, see my !vote change.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it! --Lysytalk 12:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong support. Oh dear, let me be the first to support this. Per nom. Usually we are in opposition to each other in content disputes because of our different background and POVs, but we can always get along. --Lysytalk 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. A great editor who has silently improved quality of numerous unattractive articles. He is always available and helpful to other, less experienced users. I also admire his civil manners and self-control. Tankred 02:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - have de-numbered the above two "!votes" as being made before acceptance and listing. – Chacor 15:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Should I vote again because you have de-numbered it ? --Lysytalk 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Note: Rama's Arrow appears to have re-numbered them. [3] Also, I changed your above two comments so that they wouldn't create a break in the numbering (a nested list thing), but this should have no change in the appearance of your comments. [4] Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong support, excellent editor, helpful and wise in dealing with conflicts. Kusma (討論) 15:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Just look at this example of civility and explanation. Dar-Ape 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Just remember to warn vandals in the future. No big deal. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - I keep running into your pic of Lion Shrine and never with bad thoughts. So good luck, and please keep on your good work. Renata 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Reviewing this user's contributions shows that this user is a great asset to Wikipedia. Neil916 (Talk) 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Very good at dealing with conflicts. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian ※ Talk 21:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Skill at dealing with conflicts is a plus.-- danntm T C 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support excellent editor. Rama's arrow 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Excellent user. Errabee 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Mike (Talk) 00:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Michael 00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support per nom, answers to questions, and excellent responses to the oppose and neutral !voters. Excellent candidate, no issues. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support based on long term and positive experience. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Definitely seems trustworthy. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, but warn vandals.  Jorcoga  05:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support if you keep your word that you'll warn the vandals. Few things frustrate me more than reverting an IP vandal with 6 vandalizing edits and not a single previous warning. KrakatoaKatie 08:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support, per other comments (obviously, since I'm the nominator).--Caliga10 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support -- a calm voice in the frequent Polish/German POV fights -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --I know his edits and are NPOV. --Wissahickon Creek msg 15:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. support. i am glad to see somebody not on a jihad against vandals. andy should be ashamed for criticizing his plethora of edits as opposed to his blocks/bans/reverts/warns. ... aa:talk 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Weak support I can see some room for improvement in mediation (see response to 4th question), but seems good overall. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 19:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support I'm a bit concerned about the lack of wiki-space participation, his believing that RfA is a vote, and the lack of warning vandals after reversions. Having said that, Olessi seems to be a very dedicated volunteer to the project and certainly seems trustworthy. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support - devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 04:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Excellent admin potential. I commend this wikipedian for behaving neutrally on very contentious subjects. He does not seem to have much experience in admin space, so I urge him to verse himself in Wikipedia guidelines and policies before long. Good luck, Ghirla -трёп- 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. After examining the contribs, I can only support this excellent editor, and I'm more than sure that he will make a good admin! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, do not expect any problems, editor appears to be sensible. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Based on my previous interactions with Olessi, he's got all the qualities an admin need, and he's got them in abundance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, knowledgeable and unbiased. By the way, opposing the nomination on grounds of Olessi not having warned vandals seems completely ridiculous. --Thorsten1 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Support Seems to me Olessi will be a fine admin. Dionyseus 02:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support, will be a great admin, unbiased, experienced, but mostly because of the answers to the questions. James086 Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review! 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Qualified support: Adminship is no big deal, and I do believe that Olessi would make a good administrator. However, you should try to warn vandals far more often - it's an important way to deter future vandalism, and potentially win over a few new users. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 01:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. 'Strong support.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Weak support you look like a great contributor whose mediation skills in particular will be appreciated, but as a janitor, I'd have liked to see more Wikipedia space edits. TewfikTalk 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Total support This is a non-brainer. very courteous, fair, keeps cool, and is a stickler about Wikiquette, something that I really value. I am surprised this user is not a sysop yet. Gets my support under all circumstances. Good luck. Gryffindor 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Quite surprised Olessi isn't already a sysop too. Best Wishes Heligoland 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong support This user is da' shit, man. --Marktheprices 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    User's 16th edit Alex Bakharev 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support I don't recall why I did not see or discounted edit count and time w/ wikipedia. Although reverting/warning/reporting vandals gives the experience to not make unwarranted blocks, I have to consider 8,000 edits since March sufficeint to support. Especially when they are real, article writing edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support- Editor of great intelligence. Dr.khan 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support - of course! Olessi is one of the best editors I've encountered, and I have no doubt that he will be a great admin. Khoikhoi 03:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Strong support. Excellent editor, intelligent, polite, level-headed. WOuld make a great admin. --Irpen 07:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, wants to tackle vandalism but has never warned a vandal (as far as I can see) after reverting their vandalism, please read WP:VAND.--Andeh 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. User:Andeh is correct in that warning vandals on user/IP talk pages has not been a priority of mine, as I revert vandalism in my watchlist while copyediting other articles. However, this past behavior does little to discourage future vandalism by these individuals and is something I will improve upon. I thank Andeh (and Nishkid64) for pointing out these ways to improve my editing. WP:VAND and WP:AIAV in particular will be useful and used. Olessi 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Warning vandals you spot on your watchlist is often counterproductive...if the vandalism from an IP is more than an hour old then your warning is as likely to reach the wrong person as the right one. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not been my experience. Most anonymous vandalism I see tends to come from static IPs these days. (Maybe it's the difference between our respective watchlists and the kinds of immature kids each attracts -- you're getting the dial-up and AOL kids!). --A. B. 00:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • A static IP doesn't imply a single individual editing from that IP -- many static IPs will have multiple editors attached to them, like school or library computers. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
            • It's possible that warning and blocking IP addresses will persuade and/or force users to register, allowing users who have registered purely to vandalise to be easier controlled and perhaps persuaded into useful editing, and ensuring users who have registered purely to view Wikipedia or to make good faith edits to go about their business without warning messages and their access to the site being curtailed. But that's just my two cents. Best Wishes Heligoland 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • User lacks experience, 97 WP space edits, user wants to assist at WP:RM and has 26 edits there, wants to help with category moves and has 46 cat edits and only 3 edits at WP:CFD. From this I believe the user lacks experience in all areas where they want to help as an admin (also see above vote). This oppose is purely based on the lack of experience, nothing else. If it was a RfBarnstar or a civility badge, I'd obviously support. I do not believe janitorial experience comes with editing articles alone, if it did then this vote would be pointless. But of course there's always the scenario of becoming an admin then learning on the way. To be honest this rfa reminds me of Pen's rfa which seemed a bit pointless - Pengo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), 5 admin actions in nearly 4 weeks.--Andeh 16:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. In all honesty, I would be learning some parts on the way, as Andeh and Ghirlandajo have suggested. Whenever I am in any sort of doubt, I seek outside help and guidance; I do not intend to tip over the bucket and then ask for assistance in mopping up the mess. While the majority of my edits have been and will continue to be directed toward improving article content, I see having admin tools to be an opportunity to help the project in additional ways than I have in the past. I would not have accepted the nomination if I did not feel I would actively help with tasks such as backlogs. If the community felt that I was misusing tools or was putting them to waste, I naturally would open myself to recall. Olessi 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Opposeper andeh.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    CHange to support.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Lack of wiki-space edits suggests inexperience with wiki-process, fundamental for an wiki-mopper. Xoloz 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Insufficient edits to Wikipedia namespaces. Maybe try again in 90 days.--MONGO 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Sorry to oppose. Changed vote (see comments in Neutral section below) Olessi looks like a good editor but the Wikipedia edits are way too low. We need to keep in mind that edits to Wikipedia noticeboards are also in Wikipedia space. Thus, a review of the last 500 contribs by Olessi shows about ten edits to Wikipedia space but two of those are RFA votes and three of them are AFD votes. There are about five edits to Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:Baltic States notice board which show a willingness to collaborate with other editors but do not show much exposure to policies regarding deletion and vandalism. --Richard 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I have often found myself editing in similar areas as Olessi, and find myself very ambivalent about the concept of Olessi becoming an admin. Though I have sometimes agreed with Olessi, and sometime disagreed, and though Olessi does have many qualities which I believe would be useful in an admin, ultimately I have strong concerns about POV issues. Specifically, a tendency to get involved in a large quantity of page moves. I have watched Olessi move many many articles that could potentially have been controversial moves, but without any kind of advance notice on the article's talk page[5][6][7]. And in cases where there have been "Move" discussions on the talk page, though I don't always disagree with Olessi's choices, I have seen a pattern of Olessi in the camp of wanting to move articles from English spelling to foreign language spelling. ([8][9][10][11][12]). I have concerns, especially by Olessi's answer to #5 about wanting to move articles to "accurate titles," that Olessi would use adminship both to continue to move articles without notice, and to gravitate to controversial WP:RM situations, and use the tools to potentially push an agenda of moving Wikipedia articles to foreign-language titles. I am also uncomfortable with Olessi's answers to questions #3 and #4, which I do not feel are entirely accurate, as I feel that at times, instead of acting as a neutral mediator, Olessi has actually said things which have escalated a dispute. As such, I am not comfortable supporting adminship at this time. --Elonka 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Whenever a potential move seems controversial to me, I do list it on its talk page and use WP:RM. Regarding the three moves she mentioned, I did not see them as controversial and was bold about moving the titles. I sought outside opinion about "Albert" at the German board; Heiligenbeil was turned into an explanatory disambiguation page; and Paguddi was moved to match up with the English/Latin names used for all of the territories of the Old Prussians. I find her comments that I advocate moving articles to non-English names interesting, as I usually support the usage of English titles when they exist ([13] [14] [15] [16][17] [18] [19]). If she prefers that that I mention all possible moves on talk pages first, I can do that to prevent possible disputes. I realize the importance of the separation of Tools and POV and would never use admin tools to promote my POV in disputes or for article naming. I do appreciate her observations, however, and will try work on my editing so that she is not concerned in the future. Olessi 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I have many more examples than the above. In my opinion, Olessi has a clear agenda to move articles from English-language non-diacritic titles, to foreign spelling diacritic titles[20][21][22][23][24] even in the case of reverting recent changes that other users have done, and again, without discussion on the talk page [25][26][27], in violation of WP:UE. Also, pre-discussing a controversial move, in an area of Wikipedia which has a clear bias in support of that move (such as the German-speaking Wikipedians notice board)[28], is not a neutral "outside opinion." --Elonka 18:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Whether a title without diacritics is "English" or not is controversial and has been under discussion for quite some time. As the majority of European locality and administrative articles have been using diacritics for some time, I have made some page moves for the purposes of consistency within Wikipedia. I am puzzled by the mentioning of the Polish counties, as you had moved several voivodeships without using "English" (diacritic-less) spelling.[29][30][31] Incidentally, you thanked me at the time for the help I provided with the voivodeships and you did not mention anything about diacritics or moves to "English" names. The more recent moves you listed were themselves reversals of controversial moves by User:Gene Nygaard. If I was truly interested in moving articles to non-English names, I would have moved the Albert article to Albrecht, but did not. Olessi 19:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • As I'm sure you're aware, the voivodship/voivodeship moves had nothing to do with diacritics, but were simply a spelling change of "voivodship" to "voivodeship". For myself, precisely because it is a controversial issue, I carefully made no changes, plus or minus, to any diacritic title while moving those articles. But I see that you, too, freely admit that the issue of whether or not article titles should use diacritics is controversial, which is why I am still concerned that you engaged in multiple such moves without discussion. And you also admit that Gene Nygaard's moves were controversial, yet you reverted him, to diacritic versions, without discussion or, to my knowledge, any kind of attempt at communication. These, plus the fact that you are reacting in a defensive manner about this issue, are the kinds of things which make me oppose your adminship. --Elonka 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Regarding the moving topics, it seems we agree to disagree. I do thank you for your input, however. Cheers, Olessi 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose because of issues such as the undiscussed, one-man rush decision to change the spelling of voivodship, with the consistent edit summary "Correct spelling", when all it would have taken was simply entering either "Voivodship" or "Voivodeship" into the box and clicking "Go" to see that either is a correct spelling. That was, of course, though an unnecessary move, something that had good results in that you now get to the article by using either spelling, but that isn't the reason Olessi offered for the move and didn't factor into his intentions at all. The problem is also exemplified by the rush to add diacritics to various Jizera-related articles without a sound basis for doing so, though in Olessi's favor he did change them afterwards. Bit it also includes the general sense that Olessi imparts that English usage is irrelevant, such as in the discussion of the ess-tzet at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Gene Nygaard 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I could oppose this RfA per lack of Wikipedia-namespace experience, but you have made a good deal of contributions in other aspects of the encyclopedia. It seems that although you have been on Wikipedia a long time, you have not really participated in many XfD's and other stuff of that nature. Also, it seems that you really don't warn users when reverting vandalism, which is a big problem when it comes to blocking users for vandalism. You have made many fantastic contributions to articles, but if you had some more AfD experience, I would definitely have supported this RfA. Nishkid64 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I am going to go neutral on this RfA because I think that you are a really good editor in all respects except one - warning vandals. I have been through your article contributions and associated user Talk contributions from your first edit to December 2005 and compared the vandal reverts that I have found with the associated editors' Talk pages. The difs are located on this RfA's Talk page. I will happily change my opinion if evidence can be provided that vandal warnings have been issused for associated reverts in the last ten months. Reverting vandalism is an important part of any editor's job. Warning vandals is important for the community in order to know when someone is either a persistent pest or a one-off. If warnings are missed out on then a vandal can continue for so much longer, where they could have been stopped earlier if the warnings had accumulated. This is the only thing that I would request to change about your editing style; in all other respects that I have studied you are an exemplary Wikipedian. (aeropagitica) 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I don't have enough information to make an informed decision yet. Still researching. Tnfiddler 03:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Seems like a decent person, but does not have enough namespace experience at this moment. Dionyseus 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral If we look just at the edit counts, I'd be worried about the low number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace as I mentioned in my original oppose vote. I don't know this editor personally but the large number of support votes from people that I know and respect inclines me to trust that they know this editor and that he can and will come up to speed on policy even if he doesn't have much experience in those areas at this time. --Richard 06:36, 28 October 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.