Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss

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] Ragesoss

Final: (99/13/8) ended 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ragesoss (talk · contribs) - I would like to be an admin. I'm dismayed with the current atmosphere of RfA, where it looks like users that would be good candidates are too afraid of the gauntlet to self-nominate. Increasingly, self-nominations are limited to users too inexperienced to know better than to go for it. I figure, if I can't pass RfA now, I probably never will, since mistakes and breakdowns in judgment tend to stick, and I'm bound to make occasional mistakes as I have before. But if I don't pass, it won't greatly inconvenience me. I'd like to be evaluated based on what I have done on Wikipedia, not what I haven't. If I am given the sysop bit, I don't expect my editing patterns to change very much. I would occasionally deal with deleting (or saving) expired PRODs, move duplicate images to Commons, and merge page histories. I think I am also sufficiently experienced to be judicious about protection and de-protection, and the occasional speedy deletion of the most obviously inappropriate content. If I branch out to other tasks, I will go slowly and learn how to do things right. The reason I would like to have the tools is to help meet the tool needs of new users who edit in my areas of interest, and to clean up after my students when I assign them editing tasks (especially when they inevitably put up inappropriately non-free images). I am not going to answer the standard optional questions, as I think RfA should be a less intense process.

Total: 7359 edits over 3183 pages First edit: 2005-07-04 22:20:45 (UTC)

Main/talk: 49% User/talk: 16% Wikipedia/talk: 19%

Am I a trusted user? ragesoss 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
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:
Comment The candidate has kindly put a personal response to my concern over his lack of answering this question at my talk page to which I have responded - particularly in relation to the second part of Question 3.--VS talk 01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Question from xaosflux-
4. What other processes do you think should be changed, and how (or if) would you change them if promoted? (e.g. Would you closed xFD's that didn't follow the normal format?) — xaosflux Talk 23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I'm not sure what this has to do with adminship; the sysop bit just means access to certain tools, not extra authority in creating or changing process.--ragesoss 00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Question from Pascal.Tesson
5 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:
Question from Black Falcon
6. Under what circumstances would you ignore a rule? If possible, please provide an actual or hypothetical example in place of a general response. -- Black Falcon 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A:
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • Comment About answering Question no. 3 - most candidates would want to show themselves on their best behaviour, so they (in the few RfA's that I have seen) almost always mention incidents where they are really nice / their behaviour is justified. And it ultimately falls upon the "voters" to dig up 'dirt', if there is any. So it comes down to assuming good faith and trusting the candidate in both cases. The three questions serve only one purpose : its a way to assess the 'attitude' of the candidate. That is served as well by a statement by the candidate (as in this self nom). Just my opinion. TwoOars (T | C) 01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Has shown great initiative in ignoring the stupid questions. No substantive reasons seem to have emerged to deny the broom to this fellow. I support this fellow's nomination, but I disagree with the format which makes this nomination look like a vote, so I'm not going to add my opinion to the numbered list. --Tony Sidaway 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Support

  1. Why the hell not? In previous interactions, Ragesoss has been quite insightful, and I see nothing that would worry me. Ral315 » 04:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't mind the latest grub about questions not being answered. I spent the last half hour looking over the contributions, and they match the self-nom reasons, so I support. It's about the candidate, not the format. Teke 05:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum: Candidate may choose to answer the optional questions, which may result in an oppose as I did with TonyTheTiger. I feel the questions were answered in the self-nomination. Teke 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I nothing that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools. Frise 05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I trust this user with the tools, and see no problem with the questions, they've been answered to my satisfaction in the self-nom statement. Pete.Hurd 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. I was reconsidering even before Frise's thoughtful remark to me. Quoting myself below, I've known Sage for many months, and I've always been most impressed by his hard work, his proven expertise, his will to help and his politeness and courtesy. I can attest for each and every of the many qualities that he has repeatedly shown, and not merely from observing his work on wiki, but also from reading his thoughts at his blogs. In whole truth, my desire to see the usual procedural steps followed is, in this particular case, clearly outweighed by my knowledge of the candidate, and my absolute belief in his trustworthiness. Phaedriel - 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, the questions are optional, after all, and Ragesoss's edit history speaks for itself. Good luck. The Rambling Man 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. I trust this user and I am sure she will make a good admin. --Bduke 07:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - good answers to the questions (answered in the nom)—arf! 07:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per Ral315 - why the hell not? If he feels he doesn't want to answer the questions, he doesn't have to. His mature nomination shows someone who I trust not to abuse the tools, and pretty much contains everything I would want from the answers to the questions. Until someone shows he a convincing reason as to why not, other than - "He won't jump through every hoop of RFA" - support. Moreschi Talk 08:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I've seen Sage about doing good things, and I trust him with the mop.--cj | talk 09:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support absolutely, from your nomination I can understand that you are a dedicated and level-headed Wikipedian, and, most importantly, trustworthy and wise enough for the tools. —Anas talk? 10:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. That's the spirit. Contribs look good to me. Lupo 10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate. Yes, I trust you and we need more hands to help out in deletion matters. - 10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Of course -- Y not? 11:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. You bet. This, in my opinion, is the ideal candidate, and I trust Sage with the tools completely. -- Kicking222 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. support due to great nomination, above supports, and contributions. --W.marsh 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Terence 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. I like the answers to the questions, so I support this candidate. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Experience is more than adequate, relations other editors good, the important bits of the questions are answered in the nom. Everyone with any sense just copies answers posted by succeeding candidates anyway!--Anthony.bradbury 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - per no big deal. Don't fully understand about requiring extra buttons to move images to the commons, but otherwise a reasonable enough self-nom. Addhoc 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    To delete the image once moved, rather than have to tag it for deletion and wait for someone else to do it, would be my guess. That's what I do anyway. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - Many and consistent contribs over a long period of time. Quality. In lieu of Q2 & Q3, I looked at user page and talk page. Looks like a fine admin to me. κaτaʟavenoTC 14:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I really thought you were already an admin. Had I known you weren't, I would gladly nominate. Your contributions have been excellent in history of science topics and anything else you do. I'm impressed with your work on the Johannes Kepler article, which was recently nominated at WP:FAC by someone else who wasn't involved in editing the article. I realize they didn't notify you, and the nomination took you by surprise. Nonetheless, you did a superb job handling the situation and addressing FAC objections, ultimately with the article passing FAC. --Aude (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. "dismayed with the current atmosphere of RfA" Support. The many neutrals should think about whether it's more important to know the quality of a candidate by doing the research into contributions, or reflecting on past interactions with the candidate, and reflecting on the judgement of others, or whether it's more important that the candidate match certain rigid mathematical criteria, answer certain questions directly and in a prescribed format, rather than answer them by their actions and contributions and opening remarks, and genuflect in the correct direction. Everyone is entitled to use whatever criteria they choose to, of course, but I'm entitled to think that some criteria are not as good as others. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Weak Support The candidate should answer the questions, just to be polite to his fellow users; but, he is excellent otherwise. I support his adminship even if he chooses to be a bit odd about the questions; but, that choice does weaken my support. Xoloz 15:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Weak Support. Basically Xoloz's opinoin on this one is the same as mine.--Wizardman 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. I know the user's record well enough to support this RfA regardless of how he answers the questions (unless he plans on using his adminship powers to establish a totalitarian regime or to take candy from babies). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Ragesoss is always calm and thoughtful, obviously trustworthy. I also support the choice to avoid the cookie-cutter questions, to remind people that there has always been a significant segment of the community that dislikes their use. For those who persist in thinking such things are required as a show of "courtesy", I would ask how making someone jump through hoops is courteous to the candidate. --Michael Snow 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support On your userpage: "I'm married to an astrophysicist-turned-medical student, and we have three cats together." You realize that sounds a little funny...! I just have the overall impression that you intend only good things for Wikipedia and you won't cause any trouble. YechielMan 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Per Michael Snow. Discussions with ragesoss lead me to think he's sane, reasonable, and thoughtful. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Strong support This user clearly thinks long and hard about what will be best for Wikipedia, and I believe his actions show that he is also willing to act in a way that he believes is best for Wikipedia. He's courteous, smart, hard working, and I see absolutely no reason why he shouldn't have the mop. Mak (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support I am partial to those that do things a little differently. In my short time following RfAs it is apparent that the cookie cutter questions usually receive cookie cutter, uninteresting answers. An honest, and open ended statement and remarkable contribution history is much more telling that a series of questions. El hombre de haha 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Weak Support (moved from neutral) - I would prefer for q3 to be answered, but given this candidate's long record of competent contributions, I don't think that's a good enough reason to oppose. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Sensible contributor. Answers to the optional questions will be appreciated, though. utcursch | talk 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Good contributor, sensible attitude to this RfA. the wub "?!" 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Glad you finally gave in to pressure. Would have liked to co-nom, but with me being away and all, no hard feelings! Just be prepared that some people will assume you're evil just because you have a badge. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Trustworthy user with a FP has the right to get the tools. feydey 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Great attitude. :) -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support I trust Sage and have seen really good work from this user. Inevitably active editors need to protect and delete certain pages to improve the encyclopedia. As described above, Sage definitely needs the tools to improve wikipedia. I have no problem with this user not answering the questions, I read the self nom bit at the beginning and it say all I need to know. It is refreshing to see measured self confidence. David D. (Talk) 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support - Trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Oh yes, Support - no issues with this user. He can be trusted. pschemp | talk 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, no concerns. It has been argued that failure to answer the questions makes it impossible to fully evaluate the candidate, but every edit the candidate has made is available for review. It would seem to me that this is enough for any reasonable person to conduct a satisfactory investigation, and it is not clear what the answers to the three optional questions would add to that. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support, I see no issues, and that includes the questions. I see no indication he'll abuse or misuse the tools, and that's really all I care. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support (changed from neutral after checking up on his contrib history). Weak per not giving answer to Q3. —AldeBaer 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Seen user around, looked at talk space contributions, I trust this user. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Weak support as answers to questions not given, so almost anything could move me to oppose. While not answering is unprecedented, it is also not seen as a good idea. Understands content policy, as demonstrated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IS group. A little to prone to thinking RfA is a vote; I found both edit summaries saying already voted and bare votes in my limited review. GRBerry 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose. GRBerry 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Weak support A good user. However, I have a concern that the debate caused by the refusal to answer questions borders on WP:POINT. As nothing else seems wrong, I support. Captain panda 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support I did my research. I looked through his contributions. He says what he wants to do. Even if there are problems I have missed, I'm assuming good faith and supporting this candidate. Let's hope the opposers can come up with a reason why he cannot be trusted. I am very glad that only five people have opposed because of not answering optional questions. Majorly (hot!) 22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Strong Support Answering the questions is not required, and I strongly agree with Majorly that assuming good faith is very important.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support: While I would've liked to see what the user had to say for the questions investigation of the user showed no problems. Should be a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Policy is not a suicide pact. Actually, I can't see any rule that actually says all RfA candidates must answer the standard form questions. This candidate has the relevant experience and the trust of those who have interacted with him. That satisfies me. WjBscribe 02:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. No big deal. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support hasnt done anything to make me question judgement... even avoiding the OPTIONAL questions appears in this case to be a valid judgement call; even though some people feel otherwise. Got my nod.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Candidate's contributions look good. I agree that RfA should be less intense for the candidates; I don't think not answering the optional questions has much to do with that but won't hold it against you. Kusma (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support good article work + common sense. Opabinia regalis 07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - Contributions seem fine to me..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - Excellent work. Brings much needed qualification into ranks of admins. Shyamal 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - there is no good reason not to - David Gerard 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Changed to support In all fairness, there is no decent reason to oppose this user. The questions are indeed optional. However, I am still of the opinion that the outcome of an RfA can be decided over a candidates' answers to the questions, though I admit, this is an exception. Acalamari 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - singularly unimpressed by each and every justification presented for opposition. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 16:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support -- although admittedly I know Sage almost entirely thru his blog. (He exceeds the minimum qualifications, so why oppose?) I would suggest that he answer questions 2 & 3; it never hurts to reveal more about oneself, & Wikipedia is growing ever more impersonal. -- llywrch 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support I find this user to be reasonable and willing to discuss issues rather than pull pistols. Although I think that RfA should not be taken lightly, the prosecution/persecution of Danny brings to light the potential for abuse. I don't absolutely agree with ignoring the questions, but I respect the statement being made. Consider my support for the nominee, with an abstention on supporting the political statement. --Kevin Murray 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. There is nothing wrong with a candidate trying to make some process experiments (e.g. w.r.t. the optional questions) in his own application for adminship. I don't perceive that it violates any consensus if he does so. IMHO it would not have hurt him to answer the optional questions, but I think his record is strong enough without them. EdJohnston 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Strong Support. Ragesoss has been a superlative editor, improving several articles in her field of expertise up to Featured Article standard. She has created innovative ways to get university students involved in editing Wikipedia. In the course of a lengthy conflict with another disruptive editor on articles which we both were editing, she has always shown a cool head and offered wise advice at working through disputes. --SteveMcCluskey 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (edited 14:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
  63. Weak Support. While I think the optional questions were mostly answered in the nom statement, I think it would be good for the candidate to provide more information by answering them (per several others above). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support. I've come across Ragesoss a few times in the past, and never been less than pleased to have done so. --Sopoforic 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support - switched from neutral. I admire this candidate taking the difficult road of choosing an unorthodox RfA and, having seen various comments on talk pages, I agree with his rationale that RfA should not be a trial of fire. However, regarding Q3, I'm satisfied now for two reasons; the answer he provided on VirtualSteve's talk page and the dialog leading up to that is pretty clear-cut ... and, as I suspected, as this tricky RfA progresses, he has maintained his cool while being steadfast yet rational in his answers. And that speaks volumes - Alison☺ 04:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Garion96 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support, no reason not to, and yes, "optional" means optional. Chick Bowen 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support Right on target. --Infrangible 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Jaranda wat's sup 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support - If "optional questions" means "questions you have to answer in order to have a successful RfA", then "optional" needs to be changed to "mandatory". I prefer to think that "optional" means "candidates can answer these in order to help his/her chances, if he/she wants to". In this case, seeing absolutely no reasons given by anyone to oppose the candidate, other than this "optional" question issue, and a lot of positive comments, I'm supporting the RfA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. I've been watching this for a few days, and the reasoning the candidate has provided for not answering the standard questions is sufficient to convince me that they have the proper judgement and reasoning necessary to adeqautely perform admin duties. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. —Ruud 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support. Candidate shows a healthy, refreshing, and sorely needed "Let's-cut-through-the-crap" attitude. AxelBoldt 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  75. Absolutely, and Ragesoss' conduct on this RfA is even more evidence of his good judgment. He'll make a good admin. Dmcdevit·t 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support looks like a good user.-- danntm T C 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  77. Looking good. El_C 01:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support the user for adminship, but not the refusal to answer questions. I have no doubt Ragesoss will be a fine admin. That said, I disagree with refusing to answer questions because one believes RfA should be "less intense". Slightly pointy, even if defensible. On that point, remember that administrators really should be held to a higher standard of conduct, and sometimes answers help to demonstrate whether a candidate meets the standard. There are rare exceptions; users that have clearly demonstrated trustworthiness and good judgment and that have edited prolifically enough that I happen to have interacted with them or noticed their editing. That is the case with this RfA, and I'm happy to support on that basis. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  79. You have given us very little information with which to make an informed decision here, but I did look at your user page and saw this little tidbit: "Articles on obscure but verifiable topics make Wikipedia better". There's something I can agree with. Weak, tentative support. — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support. "Why the hell not?" swayed me. The candidate gives me no reason to believe they are not receptive to feedback or would do "very bad things" with the tools. Give 'em the bit. Vassyana 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  81. Strong support. Seems like a knowledgeable user; no reason not to grant adminship. And thank you for not spamming this page with a useless Q&A session! --Delirium 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support based purely on what I've seen of the candidate at the ArbCom elections in December 2006 (asking an important question of the candidates about NPOV vs SPOV) and work done at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. On that basis alone, I think this candidate can be trusted with the tools. Carcharoth 15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support No substantive reason to oppose. Do not believe will abuse the tools, Not answering optional questions is no reason to oppose. Davewild 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support as per previous above...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support A little too much grandstanding but will be a good admin regardless. Main reservation is candidate's possible lack of experience in conflict-ridden editing areas but that shows more sense than those who only hang out in conflict-ridden areas. 75.62.7.22 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support. The rebellious gesture against this dubious process (RfA) is understandable (and long overdue). But still, I think you should answer the questions posed by other editors. The Transhumanist 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support Seems trustworthy and competent.--Simul8 10:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support given the absence of a compelling reason why not to. If he wants the bit, let him have it... – Riana ऋ 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support Seems competent for the task. And I agree completely that RfA is broken. We're talking about unpaid janitorial work, not standing for godhood. Wikipedia should either take Jimbo's instruction that "adminship is no big deal" seriously or simply rename RfA to "Assume Bad Faith". Valentinian T / C 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  90. You know it's gonna be alright. Answering questions is something nice, but shouldn't be opposed becuase not doing it. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support - trusted user. Metamagician3000 05:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support The questions are optional; I don't think there is a risk of abuse, rather this user has understood that they are optional and proceeded not to answer them. While I'm sure Ragesoss knew it wouldn't do him any favours, he persisted with something that is acceptable. I can't see a problem. James086Talk | Email 08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  93. Support - intelligent and calm whenever I've seen. And Bold in all the right ways. --Quiddity 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support - trustworthy user. Jkelly 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  95. Nothing wrong other then refusal to reply to optional questions. If this were enough to sink an RFA, then we ought to re-name them to mandetory questions. :) Really I can't see how this user has any real problems, and since adminship is no big deal you have my support. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support. It's been a long time since I've seen so many comments in opposition to a candidate being so mis-aligned with the goal of building an encyclopedia. Luckily most people relied on core issues. This candidate has years of edit history to look at wether he is trustworthy enough. Not only that, but he explained why he was not going to answer the questions. Kudos to Ragesoss for not giving in to such hoop jumpery. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  97. Sincere Support (changed from oppose) Although answering the questions would have provided a standard form of information, this candidate is trustworthy and has been doing a good job. Additionally, I am satisfied with the candidate's self-nom statement.--Húsönd 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  98. Supprt for being bold and thinking outside of the box. Mallanox 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  99. Support. I felt the same as Xoloz, but then I asked myself why do we call these questions optional if they're not? ElinorD (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Until questions answered. Per candidate's refusal to answer questions, especially Q3 Naconkantari 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Regretful oppose per the diff provided by Naconkantari. It's one thing to choose not to answer optional questions. It's quite different though to not do so when being asked nicely by a bunch of people and with the goal of proving a point. "Whether I pass or fail should be determined based on people who are familiar enough with my editing to make to make an informed decision". I'm sorry but no. RfA is not about whether you can find enough friends on Wikipedia to vouch for you. People are genuinely interested in participating even though they might not know you so well and it's only natural for you to help them with that process. Pascal.Tesson 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Are the questions optional or not? - David Gerard 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Weak oppose I consider the questions to be very important. They are not "stupid" at all. Even though the candidate answered question 1 in the statement, question 3 is still very important, as it hightlights what conflicts the user has been in. I have seen the outcomes of RfA's be decided on the answers to the questions, especially to 3. Question 2 isn't quite as important as the others, but I am still curious as to what the candidate believes their best edits to be. If the candidate can at least answer question 3, I would be more than willing to change my opinion. Acalamari 18:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While policy and process can at times be ignored in the most obvious of instances where doing so achieves the same outcome as would otherwise happen this is not one of them. This is a request made to make a point and if this user wants to just shrug off the important aspects of an RFA how will he perform when he has to be the arbiter of policy and process as an administrator? Jumping through hoops sucks but going that extra mile to prove yourself when asking the community for its support and trust is not unreasonable or overly arduous. NeoFreak 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    There's a difference between making a point and making a WP:POINT. I know there is some leeway in interpreting what counts as disrupting Wikipedia, so I'll just say that it is not my intent to cause a disruption and I don't think I have. I don't consider my not answering optional questions to be ignoring either policy or process. Just the opposite, in fact; opposing solely for failing to answer optional questions ignores the explicit optionality of this particular element of process. That's fine. I think these opposes are within the realm of making a point without making a WP:POINT, though obviously I disagree with that point. You think admin standards should be higher whereas I think they should be lower.--ragesoss 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose per using one's personal RfA as a platform for reforming RfA. How is this relevant to adminship? Well, for one thing, admins should generally follow established processes. Also, given the lack of answers to the questions, my ability to evaluate the candidate is somewhat restricted. I will never support a user whom I haven't or can't fully evaluate, and in this case, the restriction is caused by the candidate himself. The "strong" part of my oppose comes from this: the candidate has been indirectly asked to answer the questions (see the comments above), yet still has not done so. If the issue was the "indirect" manner of the requests, then I'll do it directly: please consider the questions as if I (or some other editor) has posted them and answer them. I don't exactly have a problem with candidates who don't answer the optional questions. I do have a problem with candidates who don't answer questions from editors. That is hardly the attitude I'd like to see in an admin. -- Black Falcon 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    I will likely withdraw my opposition if the questions are answered. In reviewing Ragesoss' contributions history, I found nothing that would make me oppose his candidacy under normal circumstances. However, not answering other editors' questions is a dealbreaker for me. Irrespective of any other considerations, an editor who ignores others' inquiries is not suitable for adminship. -- Black Falcon 21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    If any specific concerns or questions about my editing come up, I will probably address them. But I don't see much difference between not answering the optional questions to begin with, and still not answering them after editors point out that I didn't answer them. I'm not ignoring the inquiries; I stated right from the beginning why I choose not to answer them, and others are expressing that they disagree with that decision. The common idea that admin candidates should jump through whatever hoops are set for them, answering as many questions as other editors feel like asking, is (in my view) a big part of what is broken about RfA. No one wants to be put on trial/run through the gauntlet/placed before the firing squad/weighed against a feather/[insert RfA metaphor here] for something that is supposed to be no big deal.--ragesoss 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    There is a difference. Not answering the optional questions to begin with means you're ignoring precedent, but that isn't a big deal since the questions are optional and editors are encouraged to be bold. Not answering the questions after other editors request that you answer them means you're ignoring the editors, which is a big deal. In general, I believe that if someone asks you a question in good faith, whether it is at RfA, an article talk page, or your user page, it is only civil to reply. I do not want to debate whether your actions constitute a WP:POINT, but will note that in the time it took you to reply to me and NeoFreak above, you could just as easily have replied to the questions.
    Had you replied to the questions in your statement, I would not have opposed you. However, your statement does not address all three questions (especially #3) and your continued refusal to do so makes my "oppose" inevitable. If you don't think adminship is a big deal, you are welcome to apply that principle to others' RfAs. But, I cannot appreciate your doing the same to your RfA, especially to the point of stating that it is acceptable for candidates to ignore questions that "other editors feel like asking". The wording you use, "feel like asking", itself comes off rather arrogant and dismissive.
    Now, as noted above, my criticism does not extend to your quality as an editor. However, I will oppose any admin candidate who does not show the basic courtesy of replying to questions by other editors in the absence of a damn good justification (such as protecting one's identity). -- Black Falcon 23:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose of anyone who will not answer the questions. It conveys an attitude of being above the rules and that's a bad thing for an admin to have. --BigDT (416) 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware answering optional questions was the rule here. Optional... ;) Majorly (hot!) 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Now please, all march in line, salute the flag and make the prisoner answer the optional question! Your Fuehrer has spoken. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed. Holy process wonkery. Do people not understand the meaning of optional? All this acting like the answers are a requirement for a support sure makes me think so. It's Request for adminship, not an Inquest for adminship. OMG Back in the old days, there weren't questions at all. Should we de-admin those who just made candidate statements? Grow up people. How is it being above the rules to not do something that is clearly stated as being optional? pschemp | talk 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    The candidate has the 'option' of ignoring the standard questions and also of ignoring questions posed by editors, so I don't see why editors should be crucified for exercising their 'option' to oppose a candidate who chooses to ignore them. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Of course you have the option of voting against anyone for any reason. You do not however, have the option to try to force someone to pick up a support vote by doing something they aren't required to. Good for Ragesoss for standing up to such bullying. And heaven forbid you have to do your own research into whether a candidate is qualified or not rather than have a bunch of predetermined cookie cutter answers laid out for you. Laziness. pschemp | talk 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, where to begin. Firstly, before posting my "oppose", I had done my research into the candidate and had reached the conclusion that I would have supported him were it not for what I perceive to be his incivility. So, before accusing me of laziness, perhaps you might like to read in full what I've written above. Secondly, if you consider this bullying, then I must assume that you do not understand the term's meaning or throw it around too lightly. Have I posted anything on his talk page? Have I attempted to contact him in any way outside of this RfA? Have I challenged any of the "support"s above? In fact, have I done anything other than post my opinion and reply to his reply to my post? Thirdly, as much as the candidate has the option to ignore other editors, I also have the option to oppose his candidacy for that reason. Lastly, "force"? I seem to be missing the part where there's any forcing going on. -- Black Falcon 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, and bureaucrats have the option of ignoring irrelevant opposition reasons, particularly when the people giving them take the trouble to detail just how irrelevant they are to the question: "Is there some actual danger to giving this person the sysop bit?" Thankfully - David Gerard 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose at this time Switch to support - IMHO candidate has now (reticently I must admit) answered question 3 personally on my talk page. I am not a stickler for procedure however my !vote requires more than a positive but rebellious nature & statement to sway my support towards a candidate. Thus, regarding the three optional questions - I can determine that Question 1 is adequately answered in the self-nomination paragraph; Question 2 is easily determined by looking at the candidate's user page; and whilst Question 3 is dismissed by the candidate's comment as detailed by User:Naconkantari here. That answer to User:Shirahadasha concerns me as it appears to display a flawed logic (and somewhat high-handed attitude) because if as the candidate opines, RfA needs to change - then suggesting that that change is achieved by reaching a supporting consensus based on people who are familiar enough with [the candidate's] editing to make to make an informed decision, suggests that RfA is achievable on the basis of one having a closely knitted group of co-editors, and Sageross therefore dismisses the hundreds of potentially valid !voters such as myself that have simply never come across the candidate (and yes I have been around for a long time and have a couple of edits or so) and who therefore simply cannot easily determine the candidate's demeanour in the case of conflict as posed by Question 3. That is not to say that the user is not a good wikipedian but it is to say that as a potential admin the candidate should make the effort to help us reach our verdict on his candidature and his point of view. After all if Sageross succeeds that will become part of his new task in the future ... won't it?--VS talk 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    I see it as a moderate and growing problem that editors are so scared of the unpleasantness of RfA that they are waiting longer and longer (if ever) before they feel they are ready for the ordeal. Having a less intense trial-by-question process (i.e., having RfA participants expect a little less out of the candidates during the RfA) would be a positive step. If there are specific concerns about the specific candidate, that's one thing. But the community has grown so large that one can be known by a large group of Wikipedians that will be quite capable of giving enough commentary one way or another to get a clear view of a candidate. Unless the whole closely-knitted group is a bunch of bad apples (in which case, that would be noticed and would prompt closer scrutiny by others), I don't see making RfA a little less of an open season as a bad thing. As others have noted above and elsewhere, examples of conflict self-selected by the editor are not the greatest litmus test; only the more forthright and thoughtful editors will put their worst face forward, while those who will be worse candidates will look better than they should. It doesn't take 50-100 people to figure out if someone will be a problem admin (unless those people are just basing their !votes on what they read within the RfA itself).--ragesoss 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Black Falcon and VS. Singopo 00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not answering template questions is one thing, not answering questions specifically posed to him is another. Editor is displaying an attitude that makes me think they are likely to abuse the tools in the future. GRBerry
    Stated baldly, that's somewhere between the slanderous and the ridiculous. Could you please set out precisely, step by step, how not answering all "optional" questions makes him likely to abuse the tools, and precisely (with working please) what abuses you expect follow from this? Else your objection appears long on scare-words but lacking in substance - David Gerard 15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think we can do without the between the slanderous and the ridiculous preamble, David. El_C 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, it's to the point. The objection says: not answering the questions means he will abuse the tools. I still want to know how the first follows from the second. It's apparently ridiculous and does indeed verge on the slanderous. But I'm sure GRBerry can explain himself just fine ... - David Gerard 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Since when is criticising someone's attitude or opposing someone on the basis of a bad attitude "slander"? In life, you can choose to slander others. In Wikipedia, slander chooses you? Please read GRBerry's comment in full. His objection is clearly not that Ragesoss hasn't answered the questions. Rather, it is that Ragesoss is "not answering questions specifically posed to him", i.e., he is ignoring fellow editors. The connection between the likelihood to abuse the tools and the attitude displayed by this candidate (i.e., finding it perfectly acceptable to ignore inquiries by other editors) should be rather obvious. If he ignores editors now, it doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to think he will do so in the future (as a sysop). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Let's face it. It's a singularly fatuous line of reasoning and the overwhelming majority of those involved in this discussion are treating it with the contempt that it deserves. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've noticed that most editors so far have disagreed with the argument or considered it insufficient reason to oppose, but I do not see that anyone other than you (and perhaps David Gerard) has involved the notion of contempt. That said, I think our conversation on the talk page has made it abundantly clear that our understanding of the concepts of "civility" and "courtesy" are irreconcilably different. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    I, too, am concerned by the tone directed toward those opposing. El_C 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. This editor may well be a fine candidate, and I understand the questions are optional. But the current process expects the candidate to answer questions to enable other users to understand the candidate's background and intentions, especially for a self-nom. Evaluators are busy people and need to be guided to a candidate's strong as well as weak points. One can only read a few of an editor's thousands of edits, and those few are likely not to contain either the biggest strengths or the biggest warning signs. Candidates and nominators should understand and work with us on this. The current process, for better or for worse, makes us dependent on the questions. Suggest proposing reform in the appropriate place and/or attempting to convince the relevant bureaucrats to support a different method for a particular RfA; User:Durin has been particularly open to reform proposals lately. I'd be happy to reconsider this nomination if the questions are answered or if an alternative approach is bureaucrat-sponsered. --Shirahadasha 05:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong oppose I cannot support someone who refuses to answer the standard questions, it makes it seem like you are skipping the hard part, therefore leading me to believe you may jump to decisions and conclusions without actually knowing what your doing and this could have bad effects say for deleting articles, I also dont even think you need the tools, you keep saying in your RfA: I may or other things which suggest you dont need the tools, one does not need them to help other wikipedians, unless it comes to blocking etc.Tellyaddict 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    "Doesn't need the tools" is a famously irrelevant objection to an RFA. The question is whether the candidate is likely to be a danger to the wiki with the tools, and that's why "support" !votes stand alone but "oppose" !votes need explanation to be taken seriously - David Gerard 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    If that is your question (by the way, it is mine as well), you are more than welcome to use it. But, please don't present as fact your personal opinions as to what is or is not famously or infamously relevant or irrelevant. Also, it is quite clear from the statement Tellyaddict's statement that that is not the sole reason for opposing. In fact, given the exact phrasing of the comment, Tellyaddict has not directly stated that "need for tools" was part of her decision calculus. It may just be a secondary observation. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Choosing not to answer the optional questions may be a little disconcerting, and I was ready to let the candidate's actions speak for themselves in this regard and support the nomination. The failure to answer questions posed by other editors, however, rubs me the wrong way - I find it impossible to support someone who fails to answer people's honest questions as to why they should support them. Arkyan • (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Although optional questions are optional, I do not feel comfortable supporting a candidate who is unwilling to do so. Admins are often called upon to explain their administrative actions. An unwillingness now suggests an attitude that I'm not comfortable with. Bucketsofg 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose due to failure to answer questions. I'm all for RfA being less intense, but not answering the questions indicates to me an attitude that is not respectful towards the community, and we have far too many admins with that problem already. I'd be happy to withdraw my vote if the questions were answered, or at least a good portion of them. Everyking 08:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose per no answers.--Húsönd 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Husond, I'm really surprised and disappointed to read this. I'd not expect someone I respect as much as you to not look beyond the RfA page. Majorly (hot!) 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    As am I shocked in Husond's oppose as well.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oh! Now I'm surprised. I'll review my position very shortly. Suspended meanwhile.--Húsönd 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to support. I apologize for not properly weighing this candidate's potential, experience and trustworthiness, and thank Majorly and U.S.A.3 above for pointing out my misstep.--Húsönd 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Based on the candidate not answering the questions, especially user added questions. Admins need to be responsive. — xaosflux Talk 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral - ish, leaning towards support - You've done some excellent edit work - I checked - and you've been largely courteous with others, far as I can see. I've no idea how you are on policy matters and administrivia, though. Could you possibly answer the three questions, so I could have something to go on? - Alison☺ 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Make that two questions. He/she already the first one in their nominating statement. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    It's q3 that I'm most interested in. Recent edit history doesn't show much in the way of conflict - Alison☺ 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ummm ... to clarify here, seeing as things seem to be hotting up. I know the answers to the stock questions are optional & that's not a problem for me. It's just that we've not crossed paths before and I'm genuinely at sea over the 'conflict' issue. What User:Aude said below goes a long way towards clarifying that, but even just a link or two would help me out here - Alison☺ 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral until the three simple questions above are answered. How intense can that be? Pascal.Tesson 05:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Swithed to oppose. Pascal.Tesson 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral. I've known Sage for many months, and I've always been most impressed by his hard work, his proven expertise, his will to help and his politeness and courtesy. That's why I eagerly await for the questions to be answered before moving to a well-deserved support. Moved to support. Phaedriel - 05:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm confused. If you already know support is well-deserved, why withhold it? Frise 05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Y'know what? You're right. My knowledge of the candidate is more than enough to clear any possible doubts that could come from leaving the questions unanswered. Phaedriel - 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral. Question 1 is answered in the nominating statement and Question 2 is trivial, but I need Question 3 to be answered before I can evaluate this candidate. Otherwise, a near-perfect candidate, as far as I can tell. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    In fact, I don't mind if the candidate chooses not to answer q3, but would appreciate if he could provide (somewhere on the RfA page) a brief overview of his past conflicts/disputes, if any. If the answer is satisfactory, I will obviously change to Support. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Switched to support.
    Neutral pending answer to Q3. —AldeBaer 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral (switch to oppose, see above) while lacking an answer to Q3 as above. It would be good to hear from the candidate in their own words about any edit disputes or problems with other editors - or if there have been none, then to simply state as much, but knowing a candidate's take on their own interactions with other editors means a lot in deciding whether someone should be an admin. Arkyan • (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    How Ragesoss handled the Johannes Kepler FAC nom helps answer both Q2 and Q3.
    Q2 - This is one FA that he has been a major contributor to, making the extra effort for it to pass FAC. It exemplifies some of his best contributions, though there are numerous other "best" contributions.
    Q3 - Kepler was nominated at FAC by User:Tomer T, one of our younger editors. Tomer T has been going around, nominating numerous articles he/she's not involved with at FAC. Also nominating numerous featured pictures, which is less of an issue. Generally speaking, you are only supposed to nominate one article at a time to FAC and help address FAC objections. The nominations are certainly well intentioned, but so many at a time and on articles you are not working on might be seen as somewhat disruptive. Ragesoss handles the FAC nomination with utmost courtesy, whereas other editors may have not reacted as such. I think this situation demonstrates how Ragesoss handles situations where "other users caused him stress" and "how have he deals with it." --Aude (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    I looked over the FAC review you provided. It looks like the candidate worked exceptionally hard there. Although I still don't think it answers q3, I'm going to move to support on the basis of a clear record of good contributions. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. I've known Sage for some time, mainly from reading his blog. He seems sensible and would probably make a decent admin. I am, however, withholding support per my endorsement policy. I especially applaud his refusal to answer the (quite stupid) standard questions. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Dear Kelly, regardless of my personal opinion, I completely respect your endorsement policy, so it's not my intention to discuss that with you. But I merely want to bring to your attention that Sage pretty much is the driving force behind the WikiProject History of Science; a simple review of his contributions shows he invests, and has invested quite a lot of effort for a long time in coordinating this Project. I understand that your endorsement policy seeks that administrators show experience with editing content and engagement in the collaborative process; don't you think that, despite lacking explicit endorsement from said WikiProject, Sage has shown your desired requirements? Again, I'm not disputing your !vote, but only bringing special circumstances that maybe you're not aware of to your attention for further scrutiny. Regards, Phaedriel - 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Good editor, but I would prefer the optional questions become mandatory perhaps. Jmlk17 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral See no obvious reason to oppose, but a self-nom really ought to answer the questions, particularly Q3, IMO. DES (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral -- Answering the questions would help give the community a feeling on what type of an administrator you would be. Real96 23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral Pending answer to user added question above. — xaosflux Talk 23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Moved to oppose.
  5. Neutral- I think he should have answered the optional questions Thunderwing 16:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Actually (shock, horror) contirbutes to articles instead of hanging around AfD like most of nominations, but why won't the answer the questions... Bjrobinson 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Would support if he didn't use this RFA for soapboxing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral The "questions" issue. I'm not clear that the candidate has really explained why they need the demotion to administrator status. Pedro |  Chat  19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Abstain from voting, but wish to comment

  • I choose not to engage in a voting system since RfA is supposed to be a consensus garnering system, which is very poorly served by voting. Please do not construe this commentary as "support", "oppose" or "neutral" since it is none of those. I find the opposition to this RfA based on lack of answering optional questions to be rather ludicrous and stands in no way as an impediment to being an adminstrator. In fact, quite the contrary. I believe the nominee's attitude with regards to RfA is appropriate. He's been here more than two years and never been blocked. On the surface, he seems trustworthy. I'm open to and would like to see diffs or negative commentary regarding this candidate based on something other than lack of answering the questions, and lack of perceived need of tools (which is utterly irrelevant to whether someone should be an admin or not). --Durin 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I completely agree. There seems to be a healthy lack of substantive opposes here, which, if they don't realize it, only serves to demonstrate why vote counting would bea bad idea. Dmcdevit·t 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Support Durin's view... er, wait! strike that. :) I have to agree with it though, there are no real substantive reasons to oppose other than failure to genuflect not answering optional questions. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know Mr Ragesoss very well, nor have I paid attention to what he has done previously, so I don't feel like voting in this Rfa. However I agree with what Mr Ragesoss said that the questions are optional. They are here for us to understand him better, if there are something about him the community doesn't understand, or wishing him to clarify. Instead of denying his right to silence, why don't we take silence as his answer to those questions? If, after considering the fact that he refuses to answer the questions, users still support him, then he should be granted sysop access per consensus. After all, I believe one's action speaks more than his words.--Computor 14:07, 26 April 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.