Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tenebrae2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Tenebrae

(17/33/5); Ended, 23:00 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae (talk · contribs) - A very knowledgeable user in terms of wikipedia editing policy and an active member of WP:CMC project. He's shown great spirit in the community and able to work hand-in-hand with his fellow co-editors. He's willing to work with other users for the betterment of an article †Bloodpack† 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and have made friends in the community. Two of them were Admins who likewise came out of WikiProject Comics, and who are now on indefinite hiatus. I can think of some of WPC peers who are so very qualified, and if they were to step up, I would step down. But someone who knows comic books, the basis of some of the biggest things in present pop culture, should be an Admin who can deal with comics issues knowledgeably. --Tenebrae 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Dispute resolution, page protection, vandalism, trying to keep calm heads with WP:CIVIL, and trying to fill the very large gap left on the Comics Project page by the now departed admins noted above.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As a journalist/editor in real-life, I believe I've added a certain level of grammar, conciseness, directness and readability to existing articles, and I have done the professional-level research one would expect on the more than 135 articles I've created — 70 of them biographies of comic-book giants such as Syd Shores, Lou Fine, Sol Brodsky, Nick Cardy, George Tuska and Joe Maneely, who inexplicably did not have Wikipedia entries. As well, I've added lengthily researched articles on comics history. I'm proudest of having helped newsbies start and flesh out articles that they wanted, and to help instruct them on Wiki guidelines -- User:Basique and User:Maple Leaf in particular.
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: Anytime you make corrections or additions, you run the risk of offending someone. In some cases — indeed, in the case of the editor who nominated me — I'm proud to say that after initial misunderstandings we came to be Wikifriends. I've helped newbie editors who spoke with heated or confused comments start Wiki articles that have since attracted many contributions, and those new editors and I have stayed on good terms; they sometimes come to me still for advice and information.
Sometimes I've asked for an RfC, and while usually my peers support my version of an article or passage, they've also found points that could be clearer or more definitive, and we've worked together on improving articles. I could have more patience with vandals, I suppose, but I believe I post calmly and straightforwardly. And I never give up on another editor who may frustrate me but who I believe can learn the Wiki ways. I will say that great admins like User:Hiding and User:ChrisGriswold have shown me — and anyone else who reads their posts — model behavior of how to be calm, firm and fair. --Tenebrae 06:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • I am disappointed this nominee decided to go ahead with this nomination against advice I gave. Earlier today, this user canvassed nearly three dozen talk pages with links to this RfA before it went live ([1][2][3] for examples) I advised the nominee that this was quite bad form [4]. Subsequent to this, he removed the canvassing that he had done earlier [5][6][7]. I found the removals to be laudable, but informed the nominee that continuing with the RfA would not be a good idea as the effect is still the same [8]. He has decided to go ahead with this anyways, despite twice being asked what his rush was. There's nothing that can be served by him being an admin now that can not be similarly served by waiting at least a couple of weeks and allowing the slate to be cleaned of the terribly negative effect the canvassing has. I think this shows poor judgement. I think the nominee has done a wonderful thing in responding to the criticism I sent him and took appropriate action except for continuing this RfA. --Durin 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Cause of the canvassing issue, i am just pointing out that I would of supported even if he didn't, but granted if I had not seen it on my talk page I would not even know this was going on(had to look in my history to find the link to this). Phoenix741 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You just proved my point; the point of an RfA is to garner consensus. By having canvassing, the opportunity for consensus is removed. Instead, it becomes a vote. Perhaps I should canvas IRC to get people to oppose this nomination? Would that be considered fair? Of course not. We do not canvas because we are after consensus. --Durin 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ok, i see your point.Phoenix741 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The canvassing is a valid criticism, as oblivious and unintentional a rule violation as it was. You're right. The opinions, pro or con, I can't comment on, but as a point of factual accuracy, nothing was being hidden when I archived. Nothing can be hidden on Wikipedia, as comments below show. I offer as proof the fact I did not archive the continuation of the canvassing discussion. It's there on the current page for all to see.
I do thank Durin, who has been utterly fair, and who has never made a hiding accusation.--Tenebrae 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why canvassing is prohibited. Surely the users best fitted to evaluate an RfA candidate are those who have worked with that candidate before? So why shouldn't they be invited to comment? I do know that it's very difficult to gain a real understanding of someone's editing history when you only encounter them for the first time at RfA. Walton Need some help? 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why the people who have worked with an editor in the past shouldn't be notified when that editor has been nominated for adminship. I doubt that most editors watch the Requests for adminship page. How many people can the nominee tell before it becomes "canvassing"? Five? Three? One? None? Without such notification, the only people who will get to express their opinion are ones who have no prior experience with the nominee. To my mind, that would be a lopsided picture. --GentlemanGhost 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's sort of silly to expect the people who regularly patrol WP:RfA to know a candidate better than fellow Task Force or Wikiproject members. I really think the policy should be ammended, actually. A simple "I've been nominated for adminship, please leave your thoughts" should be encouraged. In my mind, canvassing would be "I've been nominated for adminship, please come support", which implies you're expecting a certain action from a user. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Recommend withdrawal, to prevent further heartache - there are obviously some issues to work on here. Perhaps try again in a few months' time? – Rianaऋ 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's kind and it's empathetic to suggest. Don't worry — I'm not taking anything personally, and with the degree of support and discussion here, it seems premature to cut this short. Things are being said that need vented.
I'm finding this helpful and eye-opening, both about myself and about the priorities of a segment of the community. This can only be good for everyone here. --Tenebrae 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's very wise of you. This is unlikely to pass, but I wish you all the best anyway, and hopefully will feel ready to support in a few months. – Rianaऋ 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Riana, for your calm demeanor and neutral tone. I find some of the emotionalism on this page ironic given the incivility allegations.
I need to clarify an issue of factual accuracy. It's inaccurate to say I see adminship as a badge. In my original posting I said that if a knowledgeable editor whose work I knew "were to step up, I would step down." --Tenebrae 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that this editor has over 15,000 edits. Yes, the canvassing may be a big deal to some Wikipedians, but overlooking edit count (which most users at RfA use as a tool for supporting or opposing) is being ignorant. --TTalk to me 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT AND SUGGESTION Im the one who nominated Tenebrae for this adminship, I have strong confidence, faith and trust that its not his intention to ask for a vote when he PMed those people. But the idea of PMing a co-editor would really give anyone a "common" impression that he/she is asking for a "vote/support", but in Ten's case its not. So my suggestion is if a nominee belongs to a certain wikiproject, the nominator (like myself) MUST post in their respective noticeboards his/her RfA candidacy so that the nominee does not have to do it by themselves. And the members of the wikiproject who knows/familiar with this person (nominee) will have the discretion to go to the nominee's RfA page. WP:CANVASS is a rule/law and as a wikipedian, its my responsibility to obey/follow. I didnt nominate/vote Ten because hes my wikifriend. I nominated his skill and knowledge and I wholeheartedly trust them. WP:CMC people are professional editors and I'm not saying others arent. They're voting him here for his capabilities and not for wikifriendship. Cheers! †Bloodpack† 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, we should know what who is on the RfA if they are part of that project, so we can give our ideas about the editor.Phoenix741 23:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also dont feel being "impulsive" as the major problem. It happens to the best of us especially when dealing with provocative vandals. Anyone can always refer here or in worse case scenarios, in here †Bloodpack† 01:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree here. We simply don't want admins who will end up amassing RfCs and going through desysoping. These are emergency procedures that we'd like to avoid whenever possible. Tenebrae has shown to be way too agressive and uncivil (see the various diffs provided below). You seem to think that the only issue being brought up below is the canvassing issue but that's simply incorrect. Pascal.Tesson 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not that we think the only issue is canvasing but, because people are jumping the gun on canvasing, the vote is stacked way in the oppose line. I belive that the vote would be about even if people did not jump the gun, which is something that I have a problem with cause it is not fair.Phoenix741 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Addition: yes I called it a vote(even though I know it is not), so sue me, but you get the jist of what I am saying.Phoenix741 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If that's any comfort, a candidate with about half of people opposing is doomed to fail in any case. Pascal.Tesson 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, we shouldn't bother commenting? It was doomed to fail before I ever looked at it, but I felt I should voice my support anyway. I was reluctant to do so, given that I was one of the people he contacted, so it might encourage even more of a pile-on regarding canvassing. However, it has since become apparent to me that this process is flawed and needs to be commented on. The next time a WikiProject Comics member is up for an RfA, I hope that someone will let us know. --GentlemanGhost 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as per nom †Bloodpack† 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support while kinda Neutral. Honestly I think that haveing at least one Active Admin in every MAJOR wikiproject is a good idea, someone who understands the project and what not. That way things will be able to go alot quicker and such. I know from experience that when chris was on, problems were alot eaiser to fix and what not. Now Tenebrae is a good editor, and he does know his comics and we have worked on some stuff togeather(him and me basicly built the list of SHIELD members page). But and this is why I am leaning towords neutral side) he does seem to lack some sort of personal touch. I guese like people skills, this goes with the frist Oppose by Chowbok and flying off the handel and stuff like that. If he can be a little more laid back then I think he would be a great admin.Phoenix741 19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - again 20000 edits and more than a year experience is good enough for me..----Cometstyles 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - I've had good times working with Tenebrae2 and I think that an asset like this should be able to help us get a handle on some of the more .... virulent aspects of the Comics Proj. While I don't think he should be an editor JUST because of the comics stuff, it's how and where I know him from, so that's my point of reference, and I know there's generally good work being done there. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support record speaks for itself. Manderiko 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, per Cometstyles. Phoenix2 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support (wavering above neutral) - Overall a decent editor, typically involved with vandalism or contentious editing situations. And while at times, I think everyone in the discussion could probably use a refrsher of WP:EQ, I'm typically glad to see that he's in the thick of things discussing and working towards making things better. We could definitely use another administrator at the Comics WikiProject, and I think we could do worse than User:tenebrae. - jc37 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, since recognition of the importance of Joe Maneely where others do not indicates a high level of administrative expertise. Pepso 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Moral support: Good job at fighting vandalism, which is good trait for an admin, though the canvassing was an unfortunate error. As it doesn't look like this'll pass, spend some more time doing good work here and come back; you'll likely have a better chance. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. I strongly feel that canvassing for RfAs should be allowed. I realise I'm in a minority here, but I think that the people best able to evaluate a candidate are those who know the candidate and are already familiar with their editing. So why shouldn't the candidate be able to inform the users they've worked with in the past that they're going to RfA? Walton Need some help? 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, I must say I agree, you certainly have a point... For instance, at AndonicO´s RfA, I was able to support him by mere luck, since I ran into his talk page by total coincidence and realised there that he was going for it; but if such a coincidence wouldn´t have happened, I would not have been able to support him! So, say the coincidence had not happened... Then, I would not have been able to support him becuase I never knew he was going for RfA! ♠Tom@sBat 22:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    I totally agree with Walton that canvassing for RfAs should be allowed, but as of yet, it is not - and not knowing policy is a deal-breaker, no matter what my personal feelings toward that policy are. —AldeBaer 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Seeing as this unfortunately unlike to pass, I praise your courage of not letting it get you down, and seeing it as an opportunity to listen to criticism and learning in which areas to improve. This is a sign of humbleness and wisdom that is rare to find indeed. I have no doubt whatsoever that next time you'll be a shoo-in. Best wishes, Phaedriel - 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support vs massive {{shrubbery}} issues in oppose votes over "canvassing". --Random832 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Respectfully, I count sixteen opposes which either don't have anything to do with the canvassing, or mention the canvassing as just one of the reasons to oppose. I do somewhat agree that opposing just for the canvassing is a touch odd but there are plenty of valid oppositions here. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    I haven't responded to specific editors here, preferring to respect their opinions regardless of whether I agree. I believe the above editor might have been more helpful had he added this comment to the Oppose or Neutral category, or to Discussion above. User:Random832 is as entitled to have an unvarnished opinion as anyone here.--Tenebrae 12:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Per Walton Monarchist. --TTalk to me 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support He is a knowledgable and regular contributor to WikiProject Comics. While his record is not perfect, he has often been an civil, impartial mediator on thorny issues. --GentlemanGhost 10:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support as a fellow WPcomics contributor I've occasionally noticed acting adminworthy. I was certainly not canvassed, and only found out about the RFA via a post about this proclaimed "bad form". I personally find a some of the opposition attitude to be "bad form". Murghdisc. 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - Won't change my support just because an incident. His general actions in here show he's a good editor, very experienced. And the canvassing incident is not bigger than that. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. I was going to stay out of this since it had already descended into gripes over canvassing before I ever saw this, but as I've said elsewhere, those of us who edit the comics pages must be notified when a comics article editor is up for adminship. There is a difference between posting notice and soliciting votes. Tenebrae even notified those he has had extended disagreements with, so it was absolutely not any kind of attempt at votestacking. It was notification to those most familiar with T.'s work. Since I already weighed in below when I chastised some who may have jumped on the "canvassing bad" bandwagon, I need to express my specific vote. Tenebrae is a smart, knowledgeable editor who conscientiously strives to apply Wikipedia policy, as is demonstrated by the fact that Tenebrae caught his/her own canvassing error before anyone else could point it out. Tenebrae is certainly most persistent than I am in fighting bad edits or those that simply aren't in the spirit of project goals. Although we have agreed on many things, Tenebrae and I have disagreed more than once, and I have always been impressed by T.'s clear, articulate, and patient discussion while we figure out what works best. This person could accomplish a lot of good with admin tools, and the canvassing issue that some people have used as their primary basis for opposing this RfA does not in any way contradict that. Doczilla 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
My fault there. Shouldve made a notification in the comics noticeboard. And like Doczilla, I also had disagreements with Ten. †Bloodpack† 07:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. After a fairly minor edit to an article that Tenebrae disapproved of, he flew completely off the handle, culminating in accusing me of being a sock puppet simply because I agreed with another editor's revision rather than his. He never tried to discuss this in a civil fashion. His absolute lack of judgement in this matter leaves me frightened at the prospect of his becoming an admin. —Chowbok ☠ 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - First and foremost I dislike it when people talk about their superior dialect skills, yet make typos/mistakes. Secondly, your nomination seems to imply you think a comic book fan should be an administrator, why is this? Why can't a non-comic book fan use sysop abilities on comic book related articles? Finally, with all due respect to the administrators in question, you defining them as "great" (etc), generally is a non-neutral tone I dislike - when in the face of evidence to the contrary. Matthew 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per canvassing issues [9],[10],[11]. Although I am rather weary of WP:CANVASS as a strict policy, it still is one and so has to be followed. Tenebrae did retract those comments [12],[13],[14], but only after this heads-up and directly before archiving his talk page [15] (which is to imply the notion that he may have done it to cover up on this deal-breaking policy-ignorance). —AldeBaer 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Among the thirty-odd canvassing comments is one he even forgot to remove. —AldeBaer 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding your last link. --TTalk to me 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose This diff shows somewhat snippy correction of a new editor's good faith sourcing without follow up on the user's talk page with any advice on proper sourcing. Likewise, the user's warning templates (such as the ones used here) are pretty intimidating and go, I feel, against the general idea of WP:BITE, as does this "welcome" message on the user's talk page. While I know WP:BITE isn't policy it still makes me uncomfortable enough to oppose. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per those above me, particularly with regards to the canvassing incident. I agree with Durin, I think the slate needs to be wiped clean. --pIrish talk, contribs 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I am afraid that I take a very negative view of canvassing. Even a simple statement that "my RfA is on view" implies a support request. No.--Anthony.bradbury 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose per the canvassing and subsequent archival of the users talk page. -- Nick t 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: Unfortunatly I am not all pleased with the canvassing. While I also do not like the archiving of the talk page after the incident I also do not quite like the comments that were added, they almost make it seem that the user is more important than any other user in WikiProject Comics. It is because of these comments that I must oppose.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose (edit conflict) per Lanky's diff and Chowbok's concerns. Based on his record, I think Tenebrae is a little too impulsive for adminship at present. I would reconsider in a few months if he demonstrates measured, appropriate interactions with other editors. KrakatoaKatie 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose due to canvassing. WjBscribe 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose pretty much against canvassing on the whole here. Jmlk17 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per everyone above who mentioned canvassing, and encourage the user to consider withdrawing and trying again another time. Philippe 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I fail to see why a comics-admin is a necessity but there are more serious concerns. Citing as his model an admin who resigned under highly controversial circumstances is a little troubling. Canvassing is a problem. The vandalism warning template is a big problem. But the deal breaker for me was this diff and this one which I find completely unacceptable, even when dealing with a vandal. Pascal.Tesson 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose due to some disturbing incidents of canvassing, bad faith and incivility with his contacts with other users. I will be happy to support in a few months if this behavior stops. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per the canvassing incident. Real96 08:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose again the canvasing. In a sense this may be useful, as an editor likely to do this should not be an admin and therefore has been caught in the nick of time. Having said that, another three months and a new RfA detailing why the canvasing was a bad idea and I'd probably shift to support.Pedro |  Chat  12:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    In addition, the biting of newbies as evidenced above. We can do without another agressive admin who thinks getting the tools is some kind of promotion. Sorry.Pedro |  Chat  12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per incivility to inexperienced users. --Guinnog 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Per canvassing and incivility. --Mschel 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Sorry I'm trying to assume good faith here but I think you are not familiar with what being an admin means, it is about being trusted by the community and using the extra tools to assist in maintenance, your seem to think that "Wikipedia needs a comic interested admin", therefore I dont trust your judgement, as well your WP:CANVAS of your RfA and asking other users to participate in it. Regards — The Sunshine Man 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - If you think that Wikipedia needs admins who are comic fans - then you don't understand what being an admin means. An admin isn't someone who already knows subject X, but rather someone who can tell, when looking at the history of such an article which edits are good, which are revert wars, and which are vandalism. Od Mishehu 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose So far, I've seen nothing that pushes me to support you. On the contrary, the incivility and solicitation are big no-nos. You should've been careful. —Anas talk? 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per canvassing. Captain panda 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per the diffs cited by Pascal.Tesson, which show a misunderstanding of the way shared IP addresses work and are also rather uncivil. JavaTenor 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Pascal.Tesson's links to DOJ vandal. Warning/blocking a vandal is acceptable. Threatening to call someone at work is outside the scope of wikipedia, and I believe it to show a lack of maturity. the_undertow talk 23:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per WP:BITE and general incivility from some of the diffs provided. That he didn't know not to canvas for support also isn't very reassuring. ShadowHalo 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per canvasing, and image uploading problems. Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Regretful oppose. The canvassing is just icing on the cake, really - Tenebrae is a good editor, but has too many problems interacting with others. And we already do have admins who are interested in comic books (example: me). DS 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Showed poor judgement by canvassing, and this isn't a confidence-inspiring reflection on an RfA candidate. Suggest withdrawing. Daniel 07:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per incivility and canvassing. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    1. Reply. While I can't single out any individual and know that it's true, I think some of you have seen the word canvassing and voted in opposition as a knee jerk reaction without reading any of the issues. I was staying out of this discussion to ktry to eep it from getting worse, but this has gotten ridiculous. WikiProject Comics needs editors who are regular contributors to the comics article and who get involved with WPC's activities and discussions, not just somebody who is "interested" in comics. If somebody who edits comics articles is up for adminship, WikiProject Comics regulars deserve notification. Some of you who have voted to oppose simply because you saw the word canvassing need to go back and actually read what happened. Even if you firmly believe it's grounds for rejecting the RfA, you ought to review the nominee's qualifications and comment on them as long as you're at it, so that the nominee can learn, grow, and have a realistic expectation about how any future RfA might go. Doczilla 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose In my experience with the candidate in working on the John Buscema article, various problems have arisen. (For example, various concerns about the RfC begun on February 26th.) Although he seems to have a fairly good knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and guidelines, he seems to regularily apply them in a rigid, narrow, dogmatic (and impulsive) fashion. I think he needs to develop a better understanding of General Wikipedia outlook , Etiquette , and Civilityin order to arrive at a better level of balanced perspective, impartiality, and diplomacy in his editing before undertaking the responsibility of being an administrator.--Skyelarke 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Regretful oppose There is certainly a good deal to commend this candidate, and I briefly considered supporting in order, notwithstanding that RfA is not a vote, to counter those opposes based solely on the candidate's having canvassed, which I don't think to have represented some pernicious error in judgment or conversance with policy, but there are most surely concerns with respect to the candidate's temperament and demeanor (although he seems to be civil and deliberative on the whole, the diffs adduced by Pascal and Lanky, et al., are troublesome), such that I can't with any reasonable degree of certainty conclude that the net effect on the project of Tenebrae's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Although I would like to see more admins, your canvassing shows that you may not have sufficient understanding of policy and consensus. Sorry. Sr13 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose with regret. I don't mean to pile on and, normally, I would have refrained from expressing my opinion in this RfA. I do so for two reasons: one, since others have expressed that they don't have a problem with canvassing I feel I should speak out because I do have a problem with it. I don't think it's fair to characterize this is a knee jerk reaction -- some of us just consider canvassing unacceptable and think it's a big deal. I happen to be one of them. To suggest we're just jumping to conclusions based on a single 'red flag' word is a bit insulting. And two to ask the candidate to come back and try again in a few months because what (admittedly little) I've read so far, looked promising. -- Seed 2.0 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral due to canvassing for interest in this RfA. I know Kelly Martin likes Wikiproject support for potential admins but I don't think that breaking the rules to obtain it is the correct process for gaining such endorsement. I would rather that this editor assessed the fallout from their decision to canvass and return to RfA in a few weeks' time, using the interim to better understand the policies and guidelines that admins of which are expected to demonstrate a working knowledge. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per his lack of the correct citation for image use--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral leaning towards oppose. The canvassing and other issues are concerning. As (aeropagitica) said you should probably re-apply, this is nothing against you- just the way this RfA ended up. GDonato (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral You´ve got tons of edits (over 20000!); but really, canvassing wasn´t a very good idea; it´s more, if you were not to have not done so, I would have certainly supported you! Now, due to your canvassing, I would have opposed; but, since you removed all those promotional messages, I will remain neutral. ♠Tom@sBat 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, I'm strongly against canvassing, but you have made thousands of edits. Next time, don't canvas and you'll surely pass. *Cremepuff222* 00:46, 22 May 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.