Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PrestonH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn by candidate. Please do not modify it.


Contents

[edit] PrestonH

FINAL (21/16/3); ended 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC) - (originally scheduled to end 07:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Candidate Withdrawn — Rudget speak.work 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PrestonH (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate PrestonH for adminship. He is an excellent user with over 8,000 edits. He is best known for fighting vandals and reporting them to the administrators' noticeboard if need calls for it. In his extra time on Wikipedia, he mainly changes spelling and grammar to the articles so they make more sense. As an administrator, he could work much faster on chasing away vandals by blocking their account usernames/IP addresses by himself instead of reporting them to the noticeboard. AL2TB Gab or Tab 06:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept humbly. PrestonH 07:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize now that I'm not ready for adminship based on the concerns on the oppoisng views. I'll try my best to change them, such as article building, deletion of autograph books etc. Thak you everyone who participeated in my RfA, and I will try my best to improve based on everyones comments. PrestonH 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What would you to do with the administrator tools to make beneficial to Wikipedia?
A. Well since I'm a potential vandal fighter, I would more likely lurk around at the AIV. I will usually check if they have a final warning before I block them. In relation to the AIV, I will also patrol UAA and Special:Log/newusers where I try my best to warn and block the offending user name. If the username ws created in good faith, I will try to convince them to rename theirs according to the username policy. If it is in bad faith, I will block immediately and put a {{subst:uw-ublock}} if appropriate. In my spare time, I will lurk around at Category:Requests for unblock and RFPP. I will delete frivioulus unblock requests and protect any articles with high amounts of vandalism (lots of vandalism a day and a high proportion is vandalism).
2. How do you normally greet users when they come to your user talk page?
A. I patrol at Special:Log/newusers for a list of new accounts created. Normally, I welcome users who contributed at least once in good faith. I use the {{welcome}} for the newcomers and I try to encourage them to contribute to the encyclopedia. If they want me as an adopter, I will gladly accept.
3. You seem to be a potent vandal fighter. Have you reported any vandals to the Administrators' noticeboard?
A. As a vandal fighter, I report some of the vandals to the noticeboard. Out of all the vandals in bad faith reverted, only 5-10% vandals are reported in the noticeboard because only persistant vandals (not people who are in a dispute) who were warned 3 or 4 times should be reported there. Well, my rough estimate is I report at least 30-40 vandals at the AIV, and I will examine their contributions if it is really vandalism or a content dispute.
4. It seems apparent that you have talked to users who planned to leave Wikipedia. What kind of action do you normally conduct in response to those situations?
A. If they leave out of sincerely (the funness of Wikipedia ran out, real-life issues, etc.), I would say to them good luck in real life and tell them your contributions of Wikipedia were valuable. If the leave insincerely (out of anger due to content dispute, accused sockpuppetry, etc.), then I tell them good luck in real life, and I give them tips to cheer them up and help them if they ever wish to return (examples include User:Artisol2345).

Optional question from — Rudget speak.work

5. What did you feel like when you were acused here of being a sockpuppet? And since that was over a year ago, how would you respond as an admin to that situation today, given your experience?
A. Well, I was highly disappointed of being accused as a sockpuppet back then becuase I try to convince my friends to join Wikipedia the wrong way. I didn't leave Wikipedia though, becuase I knew that my name will be eventually cleared up by someone. As an admin candidate today, I realize that userboxes and convincing that your friends that Wikipedia is a social network friend is bad, and I will try to be forgiving to a new user who does the same mistakes as I used toyou over a year ago (unless they do this repeatedly).

Optional question from JetLover(talk)(Report a mistake) 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

5. You are 13 years old. This is a concern for some users. What is your response? How can we be sure an adolescent can handle the tools properly?
A. There have been numerous disputes in the past whether users who are under the age of 18 should have privelidges in Wikipedia as an admin, bereaucrat, etc. Aside from real life issues, I believe I'm capable of being a fine admin because of my knowledge in policies and my one year experienced in Wikipedia. Even though I'm on Wikibreak, I can still help Wikipedia sometime on random days (I am still able to help as in admin sometime tackling AIV and RFPP backlogs). Adolescent can handle tools with care like any other admins because it is the knowledge of Wikipedia and the experience that really counts, and the maturity level is a top priority. I don't believe age weighs much for adminship but, the maturity, experience, and knowledge is the key to using the tools properly.
6. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A. ...

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

[edit] Discussion

  • AL2TB would you please stop formatting the comments and !votes of other people? Some people (like me) leave off the bolding of Oppose or leave out the word altogether. Your incorrect formatting changes (including indenting votes erroneously) force other people to review each of your edits, or return to this page after voting to ensure that their comments haven't been altered. AvruchTalk 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is the first nomination for someone to be a potential admin. I was not sure that you were able to leave out your Oppose heading. My formatting is never perfect, so it's not like I was able to do the whole thing correctly. I also make a lot of silly mistakes from my edits, and often find myself correcting them. From now on, I'll leave the formats out to the other editors who knows how to manage RfA's. AL2TB Gab or Tab 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The only thing a comment needs to have is the '#', other things like bolding are unnecessary and silly. John Reaves 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Beat the nom support great user. Maser (Talk!) 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Nice user. King Lopez Contribs 10:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Meets my standards. Answers are consistent with understanding the tools. Talk page shows no evidence of incivility. We have had teenage admins before, and I'm afraid I do not understand opposes based on ageism. I do recall reading conversations where the ability of the nom rather than the age of the nom was to be the determining factor. Please correct me if I've missed something, like an age limit being agreed upon. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Hmm... I like the response to my question, but it could have been a bit longer. The user meets my standards and their edits don't seem to show incivility. Their is a good edit count and there is a good understanding of policy. I don't personally believe age should be a restriction for an admin, but this is just one opinion. Best of luck, — Rudget speak.work 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Seems experienced enough. Epbr123 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. No evidence teh editor will abuse the tools. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support A proud vandal fighter. Evidently, he wants to keep Wikipedia a clean, safe community. Keep up the good work, Preston! AL2TB Gab or Tab 17:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support: good, consistent gnomework; plenty of vandal warning and reporting, no evidence of incivility or conflict. Age is a minor problem, but is it the only one? Yes, therefore support. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support – All of my interactions with this user have been positive. —Animum (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. My observations of this user have been positive. Acalamari 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Good experiences with Preston. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. A decent user.Bless sins (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. A good user with solid contributions to the project. My only concern is age, not so much because of maturity (the candidate's apparent maturity trumps that concern easily), but because the project will be one of a growing list of demands on the candidate's time. So long as the candidate bears in mind the fact that the survival of the project does not rest on their shoulders, and that it's OK to take time for other things (as anyone of that age will know is necessary), I'm fine with this user as an admin. Best wishes, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I trust that PrestonH will never abuse or misuse the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Age isn't an issue. If he isn't misusing his edit tools, why would he start misusing his admin tools? Mainspace edits aren't an issue. If anything he won't have the temptation to abuse the tools to support his main space work. I see lots of wiki-gnome work from this user, and there's a lot of useful mop-wielding work that at this level. Wiki-break isn't an issue. In fact, I think it takes a lot of maturity to step away from the RfA process and simply let it unfold. Many RfAs have gone up in flames because the nom attempted to defend him/herself against each negative issue. It's more telling when the nom lets experienced editors/admins weigh in on their behalf. Rklawton (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, in part to express displeasure with the age-based opposes, as there is not and should not be any age minimum for administrators and we have many younger administrators doing fine jobs. However, the timing of this RfA may not be the best, and given that it appears likely to be unsuccessful, the candidate might be best advised to withdraw at present and return later on when he has developed a somewhat more rounded editing profile and when any real-life pressures have receded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Per Newyorkbrad. Redrocketboy 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - I'm more comfortable with this user as an admin than as an editor. Grammar doesn't matter with blocking and protecting pages. He's trustworthy, and that's what counts. If he wants to do gruntwork for Wikipedia, I say let's take advantage of this. Now. He may not be as interested in 10 years. The Transhumanist 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Good user and good luck.   jj137 ♠ Talk 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Looking back on your prior contributions, I see that although you are only in your early teens, you have the experience that is often requested of administrators. You have demonstrated to handle situations with ease, a solid track record that is a plus in my book, and will to warn and report vandals. Better than some adult administrators for sure :-) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. I have seen Preston's editing - he should do fine. The age concerns expressed below are bogus. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. It's nothing personal, but I do not think that the responsibility and stress of an admin job is appropriate for thirteen year olds, particularly since your user page already displays a wikibreak/wikistress notice. Also, vandal-whacking is only part of an administrator's job, and I see little involvement on your part in other admin-type tasks such as XfDs. Please do keep up your good work and try again later. Sandstein (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Age is a concern imo when it comes to different things like e.g. the ability to see deleted pages. This in itself wouldn't be sufficient reason to oppose, but in conjunction with an autograph book, I personally have serious doubts whether the necessary level of maturity has been reached. Disclaimer: Since this reasoning is based on my personal floccinaucinihilipilification of autograph pages, I cannot and don't expect anyone to follow my logic. But still. I dorftrottel I talk I 11:46, December 9, 2007
    Btw: The fact that the nominating account was registered on December 5 doesn't exactly bode well for this RfA, either. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:39, December 9, 2007
    He is not a newcomer at all, he registered his account a few days ago. He said in real life that he viewed most of the policies for months before he created his account, mostly guided by User:Artisol2345 (with minor exceptions). CHeck his contributions closely and you might see where I'm going with this. PrestonH 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Preston is right. I edited anonymously since December 2006, until I enabled my HTTP cookies and finally created my account. For more details on what I said, check: User talk:Dorftrottel#Reply AL2TB Gab or Tab 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment In my opinion, I don't believe that age should matter when comes to becoming an admin. It's rather the amount knowledge of Wikipedia that a user has, and the ability to follow the standards and keep Wikipedia as clean as possible. If he is able to revert vandalism like many other vandal fighters, I don't see why age should be regarded as a concern. (And Preston, I think none of this would have happened if you never mentioned your age. :D ) AL2TB Gab or Tab 17:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (note: discussion about placement moved to talk page)
    I simply can't support anyone with an autograph page, certainly not if the candidate in question hasn't thoroughly proved sound judgement and application of policies over a prolonged period. Wikipedia is not a social networking site and although I have no problem with specialists, content is of primary importance, and all admins should have a somewhat well-rounded contrib record (mind you, I do not have very high standards). Also, I readily acknowledge that this is a weak rationale, but it's my very own. I'm fully confident that the closing 'crat will assign appropriate weight to my comments, but I primarily wanted to state my concerns. Thank you.I dorftrottel I talk I 05:17, December 10, 2007
  3. This user has not sufficiently demonstrated their ability to apply discretion and make decisions in situations where the decision isn't as clear as "yes, I'll revert this" or "no, I won't"/"yes, that's a typo" or "no, that's not a typo". Administrators need to be able to make good, educated, thoughtful, discretionary decisions and unfortunately this candidate hasn't displayed enough experience in doing so for me to be able to support. Daniel 11:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the deficiency in meaningful edits to mainspace means that this user lacks the understanding which is so crucial when applying administrator actions to/as a direct result of/in accordance with mainspace and mainspace-talk incidents. Daniel 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Clarification: This has absolutely nothing to do with age. I have opposed canidates in their fifties with a similar rationale, and supported users younger than this candidate. The concern is not age, but rather a failure to demonstrate the ability to apply discretion. In turn, this does not mean the user lacks the ability to apply discretion, but rather that they haven't proved they have the ability to do so. Without demonstration of this key feature/quality in a candidate, I can't be sure about what kind of administrator they would be, and I can't support when I'm not sure. Daniel 02:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I feel that the concerns raised above are strong. Although you are a good user, I suggest that you give this a bit more time. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose, user appears to be on a wikibreak, or attempting one. Maybe come back when you aren't so busy. Thanks (by the way, I don't care much for the age oppose above - it's edits not age that really matters - a fully mature adult can be a complete imbecile, and an 11 year old can be a genius.) Redrocketboy 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Changing to support. Redrocketboy 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment You do raise a point. Why would a user put a sign on his userpage saying he's on wikibreak? Well, he probably has reasons, but it doesn't matter if you check his contributions and the fact that he still comes back and revert vandalism. AL2TB Gab or Tab 17:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Agree with Daniel above --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Great contributor, but I don't think 13 year olds in general have the ability for complex decision making that is required of admins (particularly in XfD, dispute mediation, handling AN/I issues etc.) This isn't necessarily hard and fast, but PrestonH doesn't have the past history in these situations to overcome my general concerns. A lot of experience in these areas and a track record of solid decision making would change my vote to support in a future RfA. AvruchTalk 18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Holy spelling fixes, Batman. Is that the bulk of all your edits? AvruchTalk 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Spelling fixs and other gnomework are needed in the project. We have had admins in the past who were young who funcioned fine. Maturity as an admin attribute is seen in one's interaction with others. If recollection serves, we even have or had a a crat. Frankly, I feel the sarcasm rather weakens your argument. Cheers, (User:Dlohcierekim, but I'm at work, so) Cheers, :) MikeReichold 21:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mmm, I wasn't being sarcastic. Spelling fixes and gnomework are important, but if that is the bulk of what someone does, it makes it hard to evaluate them for adminship. Maturity is hard to evaluate, as well, in the absence of evidence either way. Tanks, AvruchTalk 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Holy Bat-snot! Sorry for misreading you. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose — I can't support this user. Users with editing patterns such as PrestonH's (lots of vandal-fighting and copyediting; little in the way of actual new content) tend to develop a fortress mentality that is not a desirable trait in an administrator. While the kind of work PrestonH does is necessary, and I have no problem in general with those who do mainly that, I don't want them being administrators. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Also, quite frankly, newly-minted adolescents should not be administrators. Period. I know different people mature at different rates, but as someone who works with adolescents on a regular basis as a high school marching band instructor, I can safely say that no thirteen-year-old will ever have the maturity level needed for this job. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'll just note that many of our finest admins are <15 years old, and seem to be doing perfectly fine - better in fact that many of our adult admins. Redrocketboy 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, Ilyanep became an admin at 11, and a bureaucrat at 13, so yes, thirteen-year-old can have the maturity level to be an admin. I believe Anonymous Dissident (who became a sysop two or three months ago) says on his user page that he is twelve as well, and he's a good admin. Acalamari 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, both very poor administrators. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    What? So Anonymous Dissident and Ilyanep are "very poor administrators". That's outrageous Kurt. Suggest you strike that, rapidly. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Is that not a blockable offence? Especially for an experienced user who should know better. Personal attacks should not be tolerated. Redrocketboy 13:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I view this as a personal attack, however he's not disrupting right now, so it's pointless blocking. He's been asked to strike it. [1]. Let's see what happens. Pedro :  Chat  14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Further. Taken to WP:ANI Pedro :  Chat  14:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    And the developing consensus at ANI is that this was not a personal attack... Suggest that Kmweber, Pedro and Redrocketboy take this disruptive commentary on Kmweber's initial vote to the talk page, starting from Kmweber's addendum to his initial vote. For the record, his intial vote here was fine and gave clear reasoning. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. This user is a good Wikipedian, and a nice person, but yet again, I agree with Daniel above. I also have some concerns with the way the questions are answered; lurking? Jack?! 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. I suspect some real life issues are presently affecting this editor and that is the reason he os on a wikibreak during his RfA. Certainly his choice but it makes me think he is unsuited for the job at the moment. As far as the age of an admin is concerned I know we have some that are very young. But they are the exception. Therefore, when a very young person requests the janitor keys we must be doubly sure they are also one of the exceptions. I just don't see it here. Now, next year? Perhaps. But let's see. -JodyB talk 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per the above concerns. NHRHS2010 talk 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Maybe in ten years. Friday (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Ten years? Why? Acalamari 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    He'll be close enough to adulthood by that time, that age won't concern me much. (Yes, I know that requiring adulthood from admin candidates is wiki-heresy. However, I feel it's an important and reasonable requirement.) Friday (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    He'll be 23. How old are adults where you live? AvruchTalk 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't care about legal definitions of adulthood. This is probably getting off topic for the RFA. If you want further discussion of why age discrimination is or is not a good thing for Wikipedia, my talk page may be a better venue. But you may want to read through User_talk:Friday#16-year-olds which was (I think) the last time I had this same conversation. We're probably unlikely to change each other's minds, but I don't mind questions on this. I realize it's a controversial opinion at Wikipedia, even if the rest of the world generally accepts the notion that adulthood is a reasonable requirement for a position of responsibility. Friday (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    If someone is as young as 14, and is a user good enough for the admin tools, he/she can be an administrator. Animum, one of the Wikipedia administrators, is in 8th grade, according to his userpage. However, users must be >18 years old to be a checkuser. NHRHS2010 talk 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't dispute that this has happened. What I'm saying is, I don't think it should happen, and thus I'm likely to oppose candidates who are not yet adults. Yes, child admins are allowed by Wikipedia "rules", just as I'm allowed to say that promoting kids is a bad idea. Friday (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    What is wrong with teenager/pre-teen admins? If they are constructive (and experienced), there are nothing wrong with them. Acalamari is 17 years old, and is an experienced admin (I thought he was much older). And like I said, there is even younger admins, like Animum, without any problem. By the way, my reason to oppose had nothing to do with the age of the candidate. NHRHS2010 talk 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Friday, are there any incidents with where underage admins have caused disruption? As far as I can tell, it's adults who get banned/desysopped/sanctioned/whatever. And I wonder, how is being an admin related to adulthood? Wikipedia is simply software - click delete, the page goes, click protect and it's locked. A five year old can figure that out. Please say why Wikipedia needs adults as admins. Thanks. Redrocketboy 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, I'm afraid. I have to agree with Daniel and his points on this matter, and the others' concerns. I doubt your judgement in sticky situations, and even though there are valid administrators under the age of 18 who work fine and do well, I don't think I can trust you with administrator tools. Spebi 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weak oppose per Daniel. I like the guy and have interacted with him well before, but am generally left with an impression of giddiness - not necessarily a bad thing, but probably not what we want in an admin. I feel bad because I genuinely do like him but I can't support for the reasons above. Do some article writing work, try stepping outside RC and copyediting a little bit. For what it's worth the concerns about age are, IMV, completely baseless - I mentor 13-14 year olds and many of them would make better sysops than some of the dramamongers on ANI - but I wouldn't worry too much, it's an unpopular opinion and fortunately is likely to remain so. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, not sure I would trust the user with the tools at this time. This is not because of his age, but I would suggest opposing based on age/maturity is entirely reasonable and the dramatically-bolded expressions of anguished astonishment are unhelpful. Neıl ☎ 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Two things. First off, the reason that thirteen-year-olds are minors in this society is that, as a society, we view them as lacking the maturity, focus and judgment of their seniors. Much more important, this is an encyclopedia, seeking accuracy and proper construction, and there's no way I want someone with the mop who has so many spelling errors and typos in his RfA answers. If he doesn't take enough pains there to get it right, where would he?  RGTraynor  11:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Significant parts of society also view blacks/women/the poor/[insert group here] as inferior/lacking judgement/etc, and these views were even more pronounced in the past, but opposes based on such views would be rightly reverted immediately. Should we really be basing our opinions here on the prejudices of society, especially when the issue is only known because Preston chose to disclose it himself? Why not base judgement only on performance in Wikipedia? I wholeheartedly agree with your second reason, however. --Philosophus T 11:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. It's my opinion that the purely ageist opposes here are completely inappropriate, unfounded, and discriminatory, but after looking at his edit history, user pages, and answers to the questions here, I'm afraid I'll have to oppose, as per Daniel and Riana. The answers in particular don't seem to really suggest a firm grasp of policy, and his userpage material and talk page comments seem rather odd in a disconcerting way; I'm not really sure of any other way of putting it (see the pi page, for example, or the 20 edit rule matter in his recent edit history). --Philosophus T 11:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. I haven't seen the issues Daniel refers too, but the lack of any mainspace work is discomforting. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Preston is a good editor and an asset to the project, and I do not think that he would abuse the tools, but I think that more varied experience is needed. You've proven that you can fight vandals, that's good! But experience in many arenas of discussion on Wikipedia (think xFDs and other RFAs) makes for a more well-rounded admin that can react better when faced with dicey and unforeseen situations. Take some time off from the spelling fixes for a few months, participate in some processes, mint an FA maybe, then come back and I believe you should be granted the tools at that time.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. I was originally going to support PrestonH, but Daniel makes some good points. Can't support, but I don't want to oppose, either. Neutral for now. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)