Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William Pietri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] William Pietri

Final (66/3/5); Ended Wed, 9 May 2007 13:43:02 UTC

William Pietri (talk · contribs) - I first came across William Pietri here: [1]. Since then, William has become more active and no less thoughtful. His posts to WikiEN-l are consistently measured, thoughtful and thought provoking. William shows absolutely scrupulous fairness in his comments and his dealings with others. Adminship is about trust, and giving trusted users a flag of trust and a few extra tools to help them enforce community consensus. I can think of no Wikipedia editor I trust more than William. With luck we will one day see him on ArbCom, but for now a mop and bucket would be a good start. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. -- William Pietri 04:11, 2 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: Aside from using the mop in the normal course of editing and vandal-fighting, I expect to help with CSD, closing AfDs, and answering AIV to start. From there, we'll see, but I'm sure I'll get sucked into other areas. I'm not in a big hurry, though; as a former sysadmin I've learned to treat admin powers with a fair bit of caution and respect. William Pietri 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think this question is angling for direct article contributions, but really I'm most proud of my interactions with editors. There are a number of contentious articles where I've spent a lot of time and sweat calming things down. Two that stick in my head are Juan Cole and Gregory Lauder-Frost; both of which involved political partisans that had worked themselves into furies over problems both perceived and real. On both I was able to bring the tone down to something approximating a civilized discussion and keep it there.
Of course, it was also pretty cool to see my name on Boing Boing for helping bust a BBC employee for adding a fake article. The barnstar was gravy. William Pietri 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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: As I said above, in some ways it's the conflicts I'm proudest of. I honestly believe that almost everybody who turns up here means well, and that with some it just takes more work to find the common ground. These days it's rare somebody can actually get me riled up online, but when it happens, I learned long ago to start walking and not turn around until I'm calm again. San Francisco, where I live, is a good place for that. William Pietri 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
4. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Docg 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A: I confess I'm not a big person for rigorous enforcement alone, at least in the sense of mechanically following policies and meteing out punishment. The Wikipedia approach shouldn't be mistaken for a traditional legal system. However, I think BLP is one of our most important policies; readers trust Wikipedia, so when an article says something both false and personally harmful, we do both our subjects and our readers a terrible disservice. We've also harmed ourselves; the errors that people most remember (e.g.: Seigenthaler, Sinbad) are BLP problems. Given that, I'd continue to be vigorous in removing poorly sourced contentious material. As for blocking, I expect I'd reserve that for the malicious and the terminally clueless; the rest I'd continue to try to educate. -- William Pietri 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
5. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject has requested deletion, what weight would you give this information?--Docg 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A: As I've written on several AfDs, my personal opinion is that this should not be counted, as it introduces a systemic bias toward saying only pretty things, depriving our readers of facts that may be important to them. However, in closing AfDs I aim to set aside my personal opinions in favor of extracting the expressed consensus and interpreting that in light of the broader consensus that we try to record in policies and guidelines. I see in this particular case the policy throws the problem back in my lap, so in the situation you describe I'd focus on the AfD discussion. -- William Pietri 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule? --bainer (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
A: In a sense, this question can't be answered: if we could get a good written explanation, we could just make that a rule and drop IAR.
In another sense, I think there are two perfectly good answers, "never" and "always", with the truth somewhere between. Never, because the rules are the deal we've negotiated with one another to keep mayhem to a minimum; instead of breaking a rule because it's bad, we should just make a better rule. Always, because IAR is really an invitation to use our best judgment and to keep the big picture in mind, which we should never stop doing, and because a manageably small set of rules can never contain all the answers.
But practically there are only three cases where I could see myself invoking IAR. First, when the violation is small enough not to rile anybody sensible. For example, there may well be a rule about the proper indents in this little block. If I'm not following it, I can't be moved to care as long as formatting is clear and readable. Second, when the written rules lag behind community consensus. The rules are an artifact of our understanding, not the source of it. And third, when some novel and urgent situation requires immediate action. There I'd do what I thought the emergency demanded, with the full expectation of a lot of discussion and paperwork after the storm had passed.
So although that's what I'd likely do, I'm not a priori opposed to other uses of IAR. I think you have to take each one on a case-by-case basis. Any use of it could be just somebody whose confidence runs ahead of the quality of their judgment. Or it could be the occasion that makes us realize that some previously settled rule is completely wrong-headed. As a process geek, this makes me love IAR, even though in practice I get a little nervous any time I see it invoked. -- William Pietri 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Is biting the newcomers a bad thing, and how would you avoid doing so?--U.S.A. cubed 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A: Biting newbies is a terrible thing. Wikipedia needs more quality labor and a lot less drama. By making sure new users have a good first impression, I think we can help both problems. Even as an editor, encouraging newbies is very important to me, as can be seen at the link Guy mentioned. Acting as an admin, I'll be doubly careful. First, because new arrivals treat admins as both models and as representatives. Second, because a jaded admin can unintentionally do a lot of biting, and I aim to avoid becoming burnt out. As to what I'd to, I think the main thing is to always be calm, kind, and reasonable, and to walk away from the keyboard when I start to feel the edges of my goodwill. One of the great things about being part of such a large community is that there's always another person who can step in when you've reached your limit. William Pietri 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list?
A: As a former sysadmin (and the guy who suggested we run a password cracker against all the admin accounts [2]) I'm big on strong passwords and good security. As merry proof of that, I won't be telling you about my password, other than to say: yes, I think it's secure, and no, it's not on the common list. Telling you more would make an attack easier, you see. -- William Pietri 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • I looked at the two articles the candidate offers as places where he has "mediated conflict" and I didn't really find much of merit; I didn't find anything at all from the candidate in the first 1000 edits at Juan Cole, and most of the candidate's comments at Gregory Lauder-Frost seemed to be along the lines of "OMG I MIGHT GET SUED". As this candidate does not appear to meet my expectations for demonstrated collaborative competency, I cannot support; however, I am open to being convinced by appropriate evidence. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Kelly, I was there, that debate was brutal. William was cautious but unshakeable. He found the citations we needed, he wrote a neutral paragraph, and he credibly defended the project against all comers - at least two of us in that debate did receive credible legal threats, and one received a solicitor's letter, so caution was undoubtedly warranted. That does not detract from William's work there, especially in the final AfD on the subject, which was a great example of putting aside personal investment in the subject in a determination to Do The Right Thing. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello to all, and my apologies for batching my replies to various points here; I'm home briefly between a three-week trip and a four-week trip, and I'm a little pressed for time.
    • First, many thanks for all the kind words and well-meant suggestions. I'll endeavor to live up to them, regardless of how the RfA turns out.
    • A couple of people have rightly pointed out that my edit count is modest given the nearly three years I've been registered, and that my activity comes in irregular bursts. This is true, and regrettably likely to continue due to the number of irons I have in the fire. Currently, for example, in addition to running my own business, I'm also involved in a wiki-driven startup called SideReel, hack on a number of side projects (including an in-progress Wikipedia tool called WikiTicker), and am in training for a local race. I think that having the admin tools will make my occasional waves of Wikipedia-focused free time more effective, but I understand why some people would rather see more consistent involvement from admins.
    • Regarding the contributions I mentioned, I didn't mean to suggest I thought they were particularly mighty, just that I was proud of them. That said, other people seemed to find my involvement useful. [3] [4] I'm sorry to hear from Durova (below) that Juan Cole flared back up.
    • My mainspace contributions are indeed a little low. (In fact, that was my excuse for begging off last time Guy tried to nominate me.) Partly this is on purpose. The areas where I have a lot of knowledge (like software development methods) are often areas where I am a shameless advocate, and I'm not sure I could keep POV out of my writing. Part is just cowardice, though, and I've tried to improve with articles like National Arts Club. I aim to keep improving in this, and have materials for a couple of articles in my "someday" pile.
    • I'm not particularly worried about legal threats. I've long known that Internet kooks use them with abandon, despite rarely having met a lawyer, much less hired one. In the case mentioned, though, my recollection is that one participant had already successfully sued another over Internet postings. The legal threat was credible enough the the article was on OFFICE hold for quite a spell until they decided the risk belonged to the editors, not the Foundation. With that in mind, I started the process of finding a lawyer with the necessary experience in both British and American law, but the question became moot, so happily my willingness to drop a couple grand to edit an article is, as yet, untapped.
Once again, I appreciate both the time spent and the kind words. My girlfriend, peering over my shoulder at said kind words, just teased me about my long-standing inability to take a compliment. Hopefully that's not coming through here, but just in case: my sincere thanks to all concerned. -- William Pietri 00:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. A no brainer. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. But of course. There is no sensible reason to oppose - David Gerard 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. RfA is a referendum on wikipedians' trust in the judgement of the candidate. I would trust this user to excercise good judgement. -- Avi 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. I strongly support William for admin - good judgement, excellent contributions. Georgewilliamherbert 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Contrib history leads me to believe William Pietri would an incredible asset as an admin. I see no potential for abuse here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Whilst I'm not overly familiar with this user, I believe he will make a fine admin, and he has my full support ~ G1ggy! blah, blah, blah 06:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Good editor with good judgment. He should be a good admin. -Will Beback · † · 06:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Looks like a good addition.--MONGO 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. If only seen good things, seems well qualified. John Reaves (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Maybe just a tad more editing would be helpful; your answers to the questions convince me that you need the tools. Sr13 (T|C) 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support excellent user; I am impressed. —Anas talk? 08:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. The level and consistency of activity is a bit low for my standards, but, the quality of his edits, and his proven track record as a trusted user largely negates this. Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. S Nothing bad that I could see... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 09:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. I love reading his posts on the mailing list, and I see no major faults here. Has been around long enough and done enough (inc. the mailing list) to show sufficient dedication to the project, and I can't see experience being an issue. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support- good user - I can see him doing great work down at CAT:CSD. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. I have seen him in action on the unblock-en-l mailing list and I agree with the praise heaped on him by other commenters. ++Lar: t/c 10:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. This is a test of judgment and this candidate has very good judgment indeed. Sam Blacketer 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support per high quality edits and thoughtful approach. Addhoc 11:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - careful and responsible. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Genuinely shocking cliche moment. Xoloz 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - Why Not?..--Cometstyles 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - am I late with the "you mean he's not one already?" comment? Seen him working all over the place here, and don't see any issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Seems like a good user to me. Acalamari 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, always been impressed by this user's thoughtful comments and contributions. Trebor 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, yep. Trust him w/the mop. Philippe 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. I can address part of Kelly Martin's discussion from firsthand experience: the Juan Cole dispute is a tough nut to crack. After touching bases with those editors periodically for half a year I've been mediating a community enforceable mediation case with them and may need to hand the thing over to ArbCom. To the best of my knowledge, William Pietri did a fine job there and the lack of a positive outcome should not sway RFA voters against his dispute resolution skills. DurovaCharge! 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Well spoken and reasonable.--ragesoss 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Agree with all the support comments. Captain panda 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support While I was initially worried about the lack of consistent activity, I realized that it didn't really matter. Admins shouldn't be Supers and so long as an the candidate has a good record of contributions and conduct, there's no reason not to give them the tools. Even one edit by a new admin is less work for current admins. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support my experiences on the mailing list with this user are quite satisfactory. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 10:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I remember this guy from 2005 in some ancient AFD where he calmly explained things to angry parties, to my amazement as I'd long since lost patience. Has a great, responsible attitude and is exactly the kind of contributer/admin/whatever that makes Wikipedia better. Not everyone edits 3-4 hours a day, day in and day out... nor should they be expected to. --W.marsh 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support I am particularly impressed by his clear statement about the appropriate (limited) use of blocking. I have a considerable amount to learn from him. DGG 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support per nom and overall record. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support This is a interesting RfA for me since the name really doesn't ring a bell at all, for a change. Hence, I had a lot of reading and catching up to do. I don't look at a candidate's edit count as a determining factor but I do take it into consideration as an indicator of experience. As I've said before, a low mainspace edit count isn't a deal breaker for me if there are good reasons to support a RfA, which I feel is the case here. Cliff notes version: I haven't reviewed all contributions but I haven't seen anything that worries me either and I do like what I've read so far. The same goes for the answers to the standard Q's and the followup. I also don't see any indication that William would abuse the tools. All in all, I think he'd make a good admin and that's what counts, in my humble opinion. -- Seed 2.0 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Your edit count isn't very high, but I'm not one with editcountitis - I think you'll make a fine admin. --Ali 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. His contributions are good, and I have not seen any real problems raised by the opposition -Mschel 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, of course. This shows spectacular good sense and judgement, exactly what we need in an admin. It's one of the best talk page posts I remember seeing in a long time. Regarding low edit counts--Wikipedia does not have to be a full time job. This candidate has impressive experience, and even if he takes long breaks, will be a fine addition to the admin list. Antandrus (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per Antandrus. WjBscribe 06:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support per Antandrus. Impressively empathic, level-headed and accurate, very good language. —AldeBaer 11:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. Guy nominee. Will not block Jimbo, nor delete the main page. Why not? He can take half the year off if he wishes, I'm sure what contributions he does make will be admirable. Moreschi Talk 12:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  45. Majorly (hot!) 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support -My interactions with him have been positive.--thunderboltz(TALK) 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  47. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Excellent responses to the questions and the additional discussion. Best of luck. Pastor David † (Review) 16:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Excellent editor and I trust him with the admin tools. --Bduke 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Joe I 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support, an obvious case in which edit-counting is irrelevant. Chick Bowen 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support John254 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Check this out, the dude is on! --Infrangible 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support Excellent editor, can be trusted. – Rianaऋ</ font> 07:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. Anyone who sparks WP:TIGERS understands Wikipedia well enough for a bucket full of mops. And compulsory membership of the Mediation Cabal. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  57. --U.S.A. cubed 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. ElinorD (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  59. Strong support based on various encounters with the candidate where he showed himself to be a judicious editor. --A. B. (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Tizio 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support - An honest and hardworking neutral editor. Smee 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
  62. Deserves a strong showing -- William seems to be a particularly well qualified candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support - I trust him (and not only with admin tools). AvB ÷ talk 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Trustworthy and thoughtful. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support. My first though on this guy was "wow how does he have so much support with a paltry mainspace count?" But after looking though his contributions, quite strenuously, hence how late this is, I think he's well-spoken enough to handle the tools.--Wizardman 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support per nom and inasmuch as it seems exceedingly likely that the net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive. I am heartened, further, by WP's (we surely can't oppose an editor with those initials) statements with respect to BLP and IAR, which reflect generally a tendency toward deliberation over celerity and toward an understanding of adminship as ministerial (and of admins as acting only to carry out those actions for which a consensus exists, consistent with those policies to which the community has given its imprimatur). Joe 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I would prefer more experience, and mainspace edits seem low for an admin to have. Jmlk17 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Low edit count, almost no activity in the month of April (9 edits total). I find it strange that this user has so much support with these credentials. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I've explained the low edit count above, and I agree that's reasonable cause to oppose. As for April, Guy offered to nominate me at the end of March and I begged off until now because I was on vacation. William Pietri 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Quality of edits is a lot more important than the raw count, this is an RFA that shows people aren't hopelessly bogged down by editcountitis. See this guy's edit count if you still think raw count tells everything about their credentials. --W.marsh 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Absolutely. And especially in meta-debate and project space, where William injects calm and balance with remarkable facility. We need skilled mediators and moderators, and giving them a bit of additional weight via the Wikimop is good; there is absolutely no reason to believe that William would be anything other than utterly trustworthy with the tools, after all, and the point of edit count is to show sufficient experience of the project - I believe William has shown that both in edits and on the lists. So the question the edit count asks, is satisfactorily answered but in a slightly different way. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. 627 mainspace edits for an admin candidate is downright pitiful. Everyking 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral You are doing great but I personally prefer you get a little more experience in mainspace area and extra activity with atleast 1000 in Wikipedia namespace. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    And I'd prefer to support someone without a ridiculous signature, but I certainly wouldn't oppose them for it. John Reaves (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    This comment was totally unnecessary. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Lahiru's position was perfectly valid and certainly did not deserve such hostility. Please be nice. Húsönd 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral but leaning toward support. The inactivity in April, combined with low mainspace edits give me pause, but I was impressed by the thoughtful responses to the questions. Pastor David † (Review) 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. Pastor David † (Review) 16:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I was going to oppose due to rather low activity (particularly in the mainspace), but the answers are quite satisfactory and denote experience. Húsönd 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Wimping out on BLP.--Docg 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I am unsure how Given that, I'd continue to be vigorous in removing poorly sourced contentious material. or any other of his statements constitute wimping out, could you elaborate? Furthermore, how does someone's opinion on policy differing from your own make them unsuited to be an administrator? Kotepho 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I took this as a kindness. I thought he was saying that although he was inclined to oppose because of my views on BLP (which is his prerogative on a topic I know he's passionate about), he refrained from doing so and instead picked the wimpier option of neutral. Both are plausible, of course, but either way I'm not offended. William Pietri 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm only supporting candidates who are absolutely rigorous on BLP and believe that fairness to the subject is an absolute duty (and, no, that doesn't mean deleting on request). However, since your views seem not to be too clueless here, and the rest of your work looks good, I'm not going to oppose you.--Docg 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Doc, if you would care to review the discussions surrounding Gregory Lauder-Frost I think you would find that William is as sound on BLP as you could want. He put in a great deal of work (and I think some money) to get a section in that article wrestled down to what was absolutely factual and unassailably true. He then defended it in the face of some pretty serious attacks by POV-pushers on both sides. I think William's less likely than you or I to nuke first and ask questions later, but I have no reaosn to doubt that he is sincerely and completely committed to ensuring that nothing stays in which is not robustly sourced and attributed. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: While I am leaning towards support as I see nothing wrong with this user, the lack of activity and consistency of edits makes me have to go neutral.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Good answers to the questions, but his level of activity is, and always has been both low and sparse. Not sure we could count on him to remain aware of any significant changes that might occur. — CharlotteWebb 17:12, 6 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.