Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndonicO

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

AndonicO

Final: (86/8/5); Ended 20:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination by Arjun Wow...this time has come (dramatic music plays). I believe that AndonicO was one of the first users I met on Wikipedia, I learned a lot from him (Wikipedia wise and photography ;). He has always been very honest, civil and kind. I always value his opinion on certain matters. He has been a very well rounded Wikipedian for a long time, something that I value greatly. He is a good vandal fighter and an awesome article editor. I could go on and on about this fellow but I would go on forever! p.s I hope no one is offended by the fact that my nomination came so late. It has been very busy on my end, I have not checked my email for longer than a week. So very sorry!!! ~ Arjun 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept. · AO ^Talk 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional candidate statement: First, I'd like to thank Nishkid, Chris, RyGuy, and Arjun for the nice comments in their nominations. Second, I wanted to clarify a couple of things in Nishkid's nomination, which make me look like a better user than I am (not that I mind...). :) One, "has successfully nominated four pictures to featured picture status", this may be a bit confusing, because I only took one of those (two I found here on Wikipedia, and one at NASA's website). And two, "he does a good deal of RC patrol", actually, I haven't patrolled

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Well, to begin with, I'd help with the Administrator intervention against vandalism backlog, and would use rollback to remove vandalism on my watchlist. Also, I'd be more helpful at Administrators' noticeboard, and it's subpage, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as many subjects (mainly at AN/I) require the tools. In addition, I anticipate helping at Candidates for speedy deletion, as the backlog there is growing steadily, and Requests for unblock. I might work at Wikipedia protected edit requests. Another task I'd like to do is organizing the Pictures of the day, since few admins help in that department. 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: By far my best article contribution is

Did you know? entry on the Main Page. I also created Portal:Strategy games

, but not without the help of a couple portal experts, without whom I'd still be trying to understand how Portals work. 10:59, 19 April 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: I have been in a couple of conflicts, but nothing major. First was the

Arbitration Commitee for disruption). After this, I tried to help with the mediation at Muhammad (formally mediated by Ars Scriptor), which ended several months after it began, without much progress (note that I did a terrible job mediating that case). Another notable incident was on User talk:83.244.149.133, in which said user tried to add an alternate theory about Pope John Paul II

's death (to put it lightly). I was much amused by that discussion, but tried to help 83.244, anyway. 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An optional question from Clyde (talk)

5. What is your opinion on rogue "rouge" admins?

A I don't think

verifiable." For example, in my discussion with 83.244 here, I rejected "The Truth™" in favor of what was sourced. Of course, that wasn't really the truth. :) 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional question from Simply south

6 Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Why? Simply south 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Yes,

Miro (company)

, because what it says in the article is all I know. Also, I don't know if the name is 100% correct, as the source lists it as "Miro Company"; maybe it was Miro Co., but I don't know for sure. 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from coelacan

7. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? — coelacan — 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: No, I'm afraid I can't give an example, mainly because I've only participated only in about 25 XfDs (I've recently begun to get more involved in

WP:MfD

,—I've commented in about 15—which I find to be the most interesting of the three XfD pages), but also because I think the closing admin has always made the right decision. 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from

U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs

)

8. How important is it to assume good faith in other users, particularly the newcomers, or inexperianced Wikipedians? How would you assume good faith?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A:

WP:CIVIL (even off wikipedia), but obviously fail occasionally (hey, no one's perfect :)). For example (again), in my discourse with 83.244 on his talk page, I did NOT assume good faith (for reasons I presume to be obvious), but I did remain civil. If someone makes a mistake or a "can I edit here" edit, and doesn't have a history of vandalism/trolling, then I am willing to assume good faith, and will welcome them rather than give them a warning. 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• See
  AndonicO's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page
  .

• Good chap. Understands the limits of ignore all rules. Probably needs to relax a bit. The signature issue, yes, well it goes without saying that we should all have sensible signatures, but AndonicO's isn't so egregiously bad as to indicate irremediable cluelessness. I support this nomination. --Tony Sidaway 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator. (Andonic already said he would accept the nomination) Nishkid64 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support as Co-Nominator. Good luck buddy!
   Got something to say? 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Strong Support- I would co-nom, but I think one is enough... having met this user around especially at Strat game wikiproject, is an excellent user and I feel can be trusted with the tools. I thought he was an admin already... Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support. I've been watching this RFA for about a month now, eagerly waiting to support. He'd do a great job with the mop. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Nothing that worries me. Good candidate, will make a great admin. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 08:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Super strong special brew support Only ever seen the good from AO. – B.hotep
   u/_t• 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Support Trustworthy. PeaceNT 08:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. It's about time! Strong support – Riana ^ऋ 08:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I've had the pleasure of speaking to AndonicO, and I've been pleased with just about everything. Since I offered to nominate him, I must support. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 09:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support without hesitation. Good luck! The Rambling Man 09:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support — per my interactions with this user. Michaelas¹⁰ 09:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - I have seen this user a few times around Wikipedia and I think he is an excellent adminship candidate. Well experienced, good contributions and fair to others. Camaron1 | Chris 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I'm convinced. Good editor with a wide array of skills. Should become a great help around the site. Jmlk17 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong Support - AndonicO really helped me out at first, with some image upload problems, and he seems to have over 8000 edits. Really, he´d make a perfect sysop, being a trustworthy wikipedian. Good luck... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 11:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - Will make a very good admin..--Cometstyles 11:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support I have been waiting for the chance to support this user. Ever since I first came to Wikipedia, I have looked up to AndonicO. He first gave me my welcoming into Wikipedia. Ever since then I thought to myself, "I want to be as good as AndonicO someday." I will definately support. Captain panda 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per featured article writing, vandal fighting and good answers to questions.
    Addhoc 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Strong Support Great editor, who has helped me in several situations. Would make a fantastic admin.
    Random ^{Say it here!} 14:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, looks like a worthy candidate. the wub "?!" 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Very Strong Support I've been around longer than he has; he's been around better than I have. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  15:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support- a good editor, and would make a good admin- takes time to answer questions and friendly to new users. Thunderwing 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. YStrong Support Not only has great credentials, but he's honest when they weren't that great. An amazing wikipedian. Reywas92^Talk 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong Support since I am a co-nom ;) ~ Arjun 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Strong Support. You deserve this. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong support per Reywas92
    (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support per noms and candidate's strong overall record. Newyorkbrad 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support — twenty-five editors in good standing can't be wrong, can they? Some
    review] 18:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Well, technically yes, they can be wrong. ;-) · AO ^Talk 18:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28. Support Trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support based on contribs and history. I think AndonicO would make a fine admin, and I can see nothing which leads me to think otherwise. ···
    joe 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Strong support - firstly, the nominations are from 4 users that have my ultimate respect on wikipedia, I trust their judgement. Secondally, my personal interaction with AndonicO leads me think that the user would make a fine admin candidate - again, a user that has my ultimate respect. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Looks good. --- RockMFR 23:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support: I do not see any reason why this user should not be an administrator. Has plenty of experience and user seems civil. Should make a fine admin.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support John254 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support I hesitated due to some of his answers, but let's give Big O the mop. Clyde (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support I have seen this guy alot, and all I've seen is good stuff.--CJ King 02:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. An all around good user with an excellent nomination. It's about time we promoted someone with "brain washed wikipals" (sic) who "find the truth unpalatable" and practise "intellectual fascism of the very highest order". Not just any kind of intellectual fascism, mind you, but only that of the highest order. ;) For anyone who has no idea what I'm rambling about, please see the discussion here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Slam dunk support (to quote GRBerry). The nominations speak for themselves. I didn't even need to read the answers. YechielMan 03:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Yes, most certainly.
    Daniel Bryant 04:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support Edit history shows a substantial amount of project and vandal-fighting work, good work on categorization, effective interactions with other users. And quite an impressive set of nominators, too! Good luck. --Shirahadasha 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Straightforward and honest. bibliomaniac15 05:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - I've seen this editor so often now & they're a very familiar face on AIV. Everything looks great, I've seen them in action enough times. Mop and bucket! - Alison^☺ 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support. Garion96 (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support excellent user, he'll be a good admin. —Anas ^talk? 12:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support: Seems a good editor, Good luck. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support: Does lots of good things around here.
    AxG ҈ ^►talk_►guests 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. ^{wat's sup} 16:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Support When you got it, you got it. --Infrangible 16:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Everyone else has already said why. Acalamari 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Andonico is a responsible user and this is long overdue. —dgies^t_c 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Ultra-Strong Support Arg! I wish I came back a week or so sooner. I would have loved to co-nom AndomicO. He is an incredible user with varied experience and a history of both improving Wikipedia while extensively fighting vandalism. He'd make a better-than-average Admin. -- S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Experienced and friendly user, will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. A very solid contributor and I see no danger that you would abuse the tools.--
    talk) 04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
55. Support. Sumoeagle179 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Seen him around, and I have a positive impression. Nice answers. #4 is ok IMO, although some may find it too "blunt" (not to say they haven't been warned so, though). NikoSilver 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Strong Support - I think we should judge a candidate by the value of there contributions and there value to thios encylopedia. To oppose based on a signature we dont like, or because we dont like something on there userpage seems childish to me, similar to, he has sloppy handwriting, or i dont like his clothes. This candidate has an excellent record here on wikipedia and nothing that i can see or forsee could lead me to believe that this candidate is anything but the most trustworthy with this projects best intentions in mind. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Weak support This user should make a good admin, but does not seem to understand IAR. It is not for ignoring other people, but for making non-controversial actions that would benefit the project but normally be prevented by the rules. Given this fundemental misunderstanding I can see why he thinks it should not be put into practice, but used correctly its practice helps the community rather a lot. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Pile-on support. Among other things, I am impressed by article-improvements and the approach to adminship expressed above. Best of luck. -- Pastordavid 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Not so much a pile on but I'm glad to see the candidate is taking the opposes seriously That makes me believe they will be prepared to learn from mistakes and that's the real acid test - not whether they will screw up because they will at some point but that they can learn how not to next time ...
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
61. Strong Support I am of the same opinion as the noms. Tennis DyNamiTe 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. I don't think I can say anything good that hasn't already been said. AO will make a fine admin. WODUP 05:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. From what I've seen of this user, I expect the mop will be well-used. The Transhumanist 06:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Believe he will make a good admin, no evidence will misuse the tools. Davewild 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Bucketsofg 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Appears from the answer that the canadate will adequately apply
    assuming good faith.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
67. Support. Answer to question 4 should not sufficient ground for opposition (actually, if one is wrong in interpretting the "ignore all rules" policy, one would do much better to err towards the side AndonicO took rather than the other way around). Nothing else is problematic with this RfA. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Terence 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Looks good; oppose comments unconvincing.--Simul8 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support seems fine. --W.marsh 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support: Hmm, this one is hard :p ~ 
    animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 00:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
72. 4 noms? He's got to be good then.--Wizardman 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Useful vandalism fighter on
    WP:PRO, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
74. Strong Support Honestly, I was under the impression that he already was an admin. AndonicO has shown amazingly calm behavior, and made a bunch of good edits. --Hojimachong^talk 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Strong Support Again, already thought we had an admin here! If they are ready for demotion then go for it! 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
76. Support. I see Andonic everywhere, and everything I've seen has been excellent. Amphy 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support
    Talk to me 06:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
78. Strong Support- I see no reason as to why I should not come out of Wikibreak to support a helpful, kind person. Don't forget AO's FPs as well! --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support per Oleg Alexandrov. ElinorD (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support I can't believe I left it this late to support. Excellent user. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support alphachimp 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. support in common to my evaluation criterions ^{__ ABF __ - - Talk - -} 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support I disagree with your position on IAR, but I don't consider that a reason to oppose someone who otherwise looks well qualified. Sarah 09:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. support ↔
    UTC
    )
85. Support: I'll rather not want Andonic join the Wikipedia Corruption Clique (WCC), but if he must, then he has my full support. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Y
    Real96 19:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oppose. Changed to neutral. Would support if user hadn't changed his signature. I consider it civil to allow others to perform string searches to find comments, not to mention that it will help keep you out of trouble if you're ever accused of having said something you didn't say. Sure, edit history is the ultimate source of information, but in most cases, you can only view it one edit at a time, and being able to find the date and time of an edit makes confirming it in the edit history so much easier. Please consider changing your signature to equal your username. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little sad that you cannot support a dedicated user because his signature is an abbreviaton of his username. But hey, it's your vote. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know the sig was a problem that way. Is this better? · AndonicO ^Talk 20:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The candidate has a vandalism counter on his user page, which shows that he does not understand the importance of dissuading reputation. Also, userpage contains grammatical errors, which is evidence of sloppiness, and the candidate declares his intentions to become an admin on his userpage, which is a red flag for me. Combine this with wholly the unacceptable response to the question asked about about "ignore all rules" and there is absolutely no way that I could in good faith support this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Oppose. A couple of things are bothering me here. I really don't like the answer to Q.4. Policy is not a suicide pact.
   WP:IAR should be used sparingly and with good judgment, taking full responsibility for doing so. But saying it should never be put into practice seems to me to have missed the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that the interest of the project trump the implemeting of rules for rules sake. Admin actions are ultimately reversable. As a far more minor thing, I'm not sure why AndonicO required 4 nominations (most of which don't add much more than a support comment would) and was unwilling to sign until all 4 had been made [1]. Is there some sort of number of co-noms competition I'm not aware of? Surely one nom is enough- the others can express themselves in their support comments. Anyway, I'm staying on the fence given the answer to Q.4. WjBscribe 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I'm sorry but I'm going to have to oppose. My reservations about Q.4 weren't enough on their own but I am dismayed to see this post: [2]. Speculating about the number of support !votes one might get at RfA as if it is already a done deal shows rather an arrogant presumption. I don't think that's a good trait to see in an admin candidate... WjBscribe 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't want to sign until Arjun had co-nomed because he's been one of my best friends since I was new here. Also, Chris and RyGuy had both offered to nominate after Nish did, so I said they could co-nom instead (I don't enjoy saying "no" too much. :). As for the comment on my talk page, I didn't feel like I was being arrogant; on the contrary, I was saying I wouldn't make

   WP:200, by 30+—130+ !votes. However, I have no excuse for my answer to question #4. · AndonicO ^Talk 20:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Well the co-noms aren't really the issue- though I do think being able to say 'no' is a skill an admin should have. But I am still worried that your answers on your talkpage (and in this thread) suggest you don't view your RfA not succeeding as even possibility- for you the only question is "by how much". That sort of presumption bothers me. WjBscribe 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I can (and do) say no to vandals/trolls/etc., but not to a friend. Also, thanks for explaining my "arrogance"; I understand you now. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - I'm not thrilled with the inflexible interpretation of policy and general policeman attitude. That plus the obnoxious sig (Two letters should not take up more than one line!) plus the arrogance does it for me. pschemp | talk 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For the sig, please read my answer to Samsara (oppose #1); for IAR and the "arrogance", my answer to WjB, right above your comment. By the way, I am known for being strict in real-life, but I'm not a policeman. :-) · AndonicO ^Talk 20:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Based on Q4. There is a potential for wheel warring if an admin in good faith decides to ignore all rules, and
   de haha 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   That doesn't make sense. A particular stance regarding IAR doesn't affect whether or not someone would wheel war in order to uphold the rules. If someone ignores the rules, they could just as easily wheel war as someone who does not ignore the rules. --- RockMFR 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, why would this cause wheel wars? Suppose an admin decides in good faith to ignore all rules and, say, delete an article. AO comes along and thinks "hmmm... I don't think that's right." Why would you assume that he will then enter into a wheel war rather than, correctly, talk it out with the admin he finds himself in disagreement with? Pascal.Tesson 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   To add, wouldn't wheel-waring over another admin's decision be a form of

   WP:IAR, which he mainly denounces? NikoSilver 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

5. Weak Oppose I get the impression the editor is a bit trigger happy, based on an entry in
   WP:AIV to block a user because of an edit a few seconds after the final warning. Hopefully, it was atypical. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Oppose I know him from Muhammad pictures mediation. He is a very nice person but he failed to resolve the dispute. I think it could be mediated much better. He never properly steer the mediation towards conclusion and it was virtually mediator less. I believe that an good admin has to encounter many disputes I don't think that he will be able to handle disputes properly. I am sorry. --- ALM 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. If you think the rules are infallible then I have serious questions about your judgement, and when I have serious questions about your judgement, I'm uncomfortable giving you the administrator tools. Furthermore, the "three XfD pages" you mention in q7? I'm not sure if you really understand Wikipedia if you think there are three xfd pages. But what seals the deal is that you had a fair use image, Image:Aoe4and5.jpg, on a user subpages at the beginning of this nomination. That is blatant disregard of Wikipedia rules, the very rules which you think should never be broken. I urge all supporters to reconsider. Picaroon 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per answer to Q4 and WJBscribe's diff regarding predicting the vote count.
   Naconkantari 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. Neutral. I can never support someone who doesn't believe in IAR. However, because so many respected contributors feel that this candidate is qualified, I will not oppose. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. I'm really not into giving users stick at their RfA, but I'm afraid what I previously said was based on not having read the answers to questions. AndonicO, I applaud your hesitance in using the snowball clause, because I've personally seen it abused, which of course goes back to the whole difficult "rouge" admin thing (yes, it's a satire, but it points to some real problems). Like Ryan, though, I can't honestly support someone who doesn't accept that there is a "right thing", and that the "right thing" may not at the time of execution be a recognised exception to policy. Having said I would support if you changed your signature, I can't really oppose you any longer, so I'll be neutral for now. I also happen to think that Ryan should oppose if that's his honest opinion. Don't be a Wembley! ^^ Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, if you really must know, I also realize that given the current RfA format, my oppose vote would mean cancelling out four support voters. I disagree with the current threshholds on RfA so much I only oppose in extreme situations. Besides, even though I think it's wrong, I feel it's to the candidate's detriment to oppose IAR, and that when he becomes an admin, he'll come around and start to use it. I don't feel like opposing for something I (maybe naïvely) think the candidate will change his mind about. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Ryan, there is no possible correct answer to IAR. There is no position on the matter which some people do not strongly disagree with. DGG 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I disagree with the first statement - and not just to be recursive! You can always find somebody to disagree with anything. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   DGG's got it right, and that's why I'm neutral, not oppose. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. I consider
   WP:SNOW to be useful in expediting the process of making decisions which are either inevitable or in the clear best interests of the encyclopedia. As per RyanGerbil10, this is most certainly not enough to oppose. Good luck. --kingboyk 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Neutral per RyanGerbil10 ~
   Talk (reply here) 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. I think being ready and able to close XfDs is a necessary skill for a potential admin to have, but involvement with only about 25 XfDs doesn't show me that yet, so I'm neutral. You have told me that you don't plan to start closing anything yet until you get more experience, and that's good. Specifically I would ask you to get involved at
   WP:DRV discussions for a while before you close anything; there you'll get a feel for which sorts of closings get overturned and which don't. I think that'll help you a lot when you do close MfDs (and whatever else). Besides that, I have a good feeling about your ability to handle what may come. This should probably be a full support, but I'm picky. ··coelacan 09:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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.