Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armbrust 2

Add links
Source: 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.

Armbrust

Final (15/15/8); ended 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC) - Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Armbrust (talk · contribs) – Armbrust is a knowledgeable editor across all the field he decides to contribute to. Armbrust is been here at Wikipedia for over three years and has contributed over 70,000 edits. Moreover, Armbrust also contributes in administrative work, such as contributing to AFD discussions, making Armbrust a very good candidate to become an administrator. Finally, while Armbrust is a autoreviewer, filemover and a reviewer, I strongly believe the time is now for Armbrust to take the next step and become an administrator. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 15:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will begin my work at areas that I have experience with: speedy deletion of files and the closure XfD discussions. I've been involved in XfD discussions since over 6 months, and although my recent participation has dropped to a lower level, I feel I'm capable to it the right way. I began to work with files in January this year, and since than have been worked regularly in this are and have the knowledge to decide, whether a file fits the speedy deletion criteria under which it is nominated.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created over 240 articles on the English Wikipedia, my most recent creation is the
files for upload
process and has uploaded many pictures during my work.
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 very many conflicts in the past, which I try to resolve through discussion, although these discussion aren't initiated by me. Other editors cause me not often stress, but if it does, then I remain civil,
assume good faith
. If I'm angry at some editor, than I ignore them until I calm down. I do this to avoid any personal attack against them.
Additional question from Atama
4. I'd like you to expand a bit on Question 3 if you don't mind. Can you give an example of a couple of disputes you have been in, or perhaps your most difficult dispute? (A link or diff would be helpful.) Do you feel your participation helped resolve the situation(s), and how? Would you do anything different today if you were involved in the same or similar dispute{s}?
A:
Additional question from FASTILY
5. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.
A: Wikipedia's goal is to create a free encyclopaedia and to reach this needs free images. There are however many situation, where a free image is simply not available (many logos; covers of CDs, DVDs and books), posters and many more). In order to minimize non-free content Wikipedia use
criteria
. A non-free file have to suit all these criteria in order to Wikipedia can use it. Because of this the use of non-free files isn't a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. These files also have to be hosted on the foundation's servers, because the use of external images are currently (rightly) not allowed Wikipedia.
6. An editor goes to and takes an photo of a copyrighted statue with their own camera. The editor then uploads the image of that copyrighted statue to Wikipedia, claiming it under a free license, because after all, the photo was taken by the editor. Detail how you would react, if at all. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible.
A. Well I firstly would check whether in the country he made the photo
WP:FFD
depending on whether there is a relevant article, on which the image can be used.
7. An editor uploads this photo. On the file's description page, the uploader applies the {{
pd-self
}} tag, and under source, specifies "Own work". No date of creation is specified and no metadata details are available. Detail how you would react, if at all. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible.
A. Well after seeing the title of the file I thinked, that the photo was most likely not made by the uploader. After I searched for "Balmer 1942", I found this at the
pd-self}} with {{PD-Australia
}}.


General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Abundant quality contribs to our sports coverage, including recent work on GA candidate Steve Davis. Uploads large quantities of nice pics with extensive fair use rationale. You mention conflict but I doubt its possible even for a saint to avoid wiki fights if one contributes as prolifically as you do, and I didnt see a single uncollegial edit in my scan of your talk page contribs. Agree with SoWhy that more frequent edit summaries would be good. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As I mentioned above, I more then support Armbrust to become an administrator. To those that oppose, in my opinion you just cannot oppose a request for administrator, because they have one fault. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Armbrust undertakes a lot of administrative work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker and it would aid his work if he had an adminship; it would be useful to the project to have an "in house" admin. Armbrust has a solid grasp on policy/guidelines so there should be no problems there. As for the concerns expressed about the edit summaries, many of these are just routine housekeeping tasks and are self-explanatory so not really an issue. Good luck Armbrust! Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, looking at some of the edits that have missing edit summaries, I don't really think that's grounds to oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, I see absolutely no good reason as to why not. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support; I've occasionally moved in the same circles as Armbrust and they've always been hardworking, civil, and diligent. Trawled 50 random edits from a few weeks ago and found no cause for concern - apart from a couple of changes that took a little longer to be reassured about, for lack of edit summaries. I appreciate that edit summaries are an important service to other editors, but (a) I expect Armbrust would take that criticism on board, and (b) even with sparse edit summaries I think they'd still be a net positive as an admin. bobrayner (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the previous RfA, 6 of the 21 editors who opposed adminship mentioned the lack of edit summary usage as at least one reason for opposing. In the 7 months since, that hasn't improved, so why would that criticism be taken on board this time? -- Atama頭 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first encountered Armbrust he never explained his edits, but he has progressed a lot since then. I think his use of edit summaries has come on as he became more proficient in English, and also in response to his last RfA. If you still think he underuses edit summaries fair enough, but it's a bit unfair to say there hasn't been any improvement. There are one or two things he can improve on—as is the case for all of us—but the bottom line is he's an exceptional editor; those of us who encounter his work on a daily basis know what a positive effect he has on the project. It's ok to nitpick if you're looking for things you want to see an improvement in, but it's just as important to consider the many positive things he does as well. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, which is why I haven't opposed him yet. :) -- Atama頭 23:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments (I certainly don't consider them badgering). Infrequent edit summaries are certainly a sin, but I feel it's a minor one compared to armbrust's other work and temperament, and which wikipedian is without sin? However, 28bytes has raised some other interesting points, so my support is wavering for other reasons. I'm very wary of opposing somebody because of the reasoning behind their previous RfA votes, but the disdain for automated edits is, to me, uncomfortably close to a disdain for vandal-fighting and other partly-automated effort which is of immense benefit to the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I changed my mind regarding automated edits due to problems with Twinkle in February. At that time I realised how much automated tools are needed. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support morally. I don't see why you aren't a good editor, but I do suggest you fill in the edit summaries. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Moderately experienced user from which I can see. I often ran into him at AFC. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 02:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Clean block lock. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Provisional support – I have not yet looked at the candidate's editing closely, but I do not place too much importance to the reasons given in the quick flurry of opposes. If the presentations made by the candidate and the nominator check out, I'd also be inclined to support. So I will provisionally support now lest too much momentum for a snowball close gets underway before I can make a more definitive support. Lambanog (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support His mistakes aren't controversial and in spite of them, he meant them all in good faith and his work at FFU, Sports articles and other noticeboards/administrative areas is just superb. He is always willing to help, he helped me get my wings at FFU and he's a backlog clearing machine! Most of the time that I'm at FFU there's not 1 request where I won't see his signature. His lack of edit summaries, while disappointing, has been pointed out that they've been routine maintenance and given that it's not a good basis for opposing the candidate as they're clearly a knowledgeable (clueful too) and helpful user. —
    Talk • Contribs) • 5:25pm • 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support - Good user. I don't find the oppose rationales particularly convincing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. The poor edit summary usage is unfortunate, but I still think he'd be a net benefit as an admin. An experienced, hard-working user, he's ready for the bit. -- Ϫ 10:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support done a lot of work, and edit summaries look fine on uploads and moves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Moved from Neutral. I don't necessarily like his personal !voting criteria at RfA, but I believe, from evidence of his previous admin-type work, that he would be a credible and trustworthy admin. Click the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary button in the Editing tab under My Preferences and the biggest issue cited in oppose will be gone. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools, though I wish he would use edit summaries more. --rogerd (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sorry but without even analyzing the candidate's edits, I cannot support a candidate who uses edit summaries for less than a third of their major edits. All editors and especially admins should be able to communicate clearly and edit summaries are an important tool to achieve this. Someone with more than 70k edits should know it better, especially since several editors in the last RFA opposed because of this. Either the candidate is unable to listen to advice or they are unwilling to improve their communication with others - in both cases it indicates that they are unsuited for adminship. Regards SoWhy 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, but X!'s tool conflicts with that Mathbot link you provided: Soxred93 So which one is correct? Those are dramatically different. While edit summary usage is far from stellar, it looks to be over 70-80% rather than less than a third using the other tool. So I'm confused. -- Atama頭 23:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I knew this candidate's name from somewhere and now I remember. 28bytes brings up the pointless question bombing (5 textbook questions that added no value to the RFA), in addition to various other strange reliance on useless statistics votes. I don't want to support a candidate who intentionally makes it even more difficult for candidates to pass by scraping the barrel for something, anything to oppose someone with. I do however, completely disagree with the idea that edit summaries are somehow mandatory (they're not, and never will be). Edits which are housekeeping or for which the reasons are obvious don't require an edit summary. Edit summaries are simply there for those too lazy to look at the diff for the change themselves, or the change is something substantial which might not be obvious. Of course, edit summaries can just have anything written in them, so they are unreliable too. We have talk pages to discuss edits, and we certainly shouldn't be explaining our edits in the history. That is not a collaborative approach. AD 18:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the lack of edit summaries, as brought up by SoWhy. On the contrary to what Aiken Drum says above, edit summaries are crucial to making a page history (or contribution history) easy to follow. Yes, you can just click on every diff to see what's been changed, but edit summaries vastly speed things up and save everyone's time. An editor who's been around as long as Armbrust, particularly one who wants to be an admin, should know that. It may seem a little harsh to oppose based on a statistical issue, but as an editor who routinely opposes RFA candidates himself based on edit statistics, I don't think Armbrust can complain. Robofish (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think edit summaries really help that much. Every edit is dynamic; "fixing typo" leaves you with little knowledge of an editor's change to an article, and most experienced users (myself included) use cryptic and abbreviated shorthand in edit summaries merely to shut the prompter up. If you looked through Armbrust's contributions and saw every entry suffixed with "cmt", "fmt", or "+" or "-", would that make any difference? Juliancolton (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say yes. Of course edit summaries can be misused to mislead other editors but in this collaborative environment, we learned that some people, especially experienced editors, do not want to mislead others. If I see someone who I learned to trust use such edit summaries, I would not feel the urge to check each edit to find out what they did. For example, if a user I trust leaves an edit summary with "fmt", I know that means "formatting" and I know that they did not change the content of the article, so I have no urge to check it. I agree that new editors won't understand such shorthand but most of the shorthand is used for edits behind the scenes (I admit that I also use "cmt" or "resp" for example but not on articles) and for articles you can really use the complete word. There are many tools to help with that, from user scripts to your browser caching the input in the edit summary field, so it's also not much work. Last but not least, I personally wouldn't oppose if the lack was confined to edits to behind-the-scenes pages but on articles that new users regularly edit not using them is really a reason to oppose imho. Regards SoWhy 20:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per lack of edit summaries. Sorry, but those are really important (
    automatic edit summaries don't cut it), and I hardly ever see them on his edits. Seems a bit hypocritical, as Robofish said. Logan Talk Contributions 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You seemingly can't be bothered to engage established editors in dialogue before summary removal of their user page content. [1]. Whatever the wrongs of those categories, having a chat first is the way forward. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think there's anything wrong with that edit, it's hardly controversial, it was just a removal of some categories placed there accidentally by a transclusion. - filelakeshoe 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair comment, but basic courtesy would be to advise the user (ideally before the action as well). This did not occur, unless I'm reading the diff trail wrongly Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user obviously copy/pasted the wikitext from
    Template:Usertalkpageheader and forgot or didn't know to remove the categories. It's a purely routine cleanup edit to remove them from the user page, which was improperly included in two template categories. Also—ironically, in light of other opposes—he uses a clear edit summary to explain his actions, in case the user wondered why his page was edited. — Bility (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Have to side with Bility here. This is entirely routine and a talk page note would have been superfluous, especially given that it's an established editor who will have no trouble figuring it out. (And in the unlikely possibility that he's puzzled, an established editor would know how to write a friendly request for clarification) Pichpich (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for the explanations. Personally I'd have asked the user but clearly that's a minority view. Oppose indented. Pedro :  Chat  06:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I really think Armbrust needs to gain more experience and understanding of policies and guidelines. His contributions at AFD don't fill me with confidence, and the complete lack of edit summaries until recently and current sparse use of edit summaries is something that needs to be improved. Maybe later, but not now.--Michig (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per last month's RFA transclusion mentioned by 28bytes. That's far too recent a mistake when coupled with his "I don't see any other possible action with it." reaction to being questioned on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per the issues brought up by SoWhy, 28bytes, and Sarek. I don't see much of a problem with the first diff from MC10 below as editors can remove any message from their own talk page as they wish, but they shouldn't copyedit comments by others on same (which I do have an issue with). All in all, I think the candidate needs to make better decisions in the future.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The poorly written nominating statement does not inspire much confidence, nor do the perfunctory and ignored answers to the questions. And then there are the issues raised by 28bytes...--Hokeman (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. 28bytes draws attention to significant problems. The lack of edit summaries is a relatively minor point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The edit summaries and the diffs of 28bytes are a bit of a concern. I am also worried about Armbrust's ability to communicate effectively in English. Pichpich (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Appears genuinely a well-intentioned user, but I do not feel comfortable supporting this user to receive access to administrative tools per the candidates judgement skills (RfA transclusion, past RfA votes). While the candidate's level of English is definitely comprehensible, it may lack clarity required for an administrator communicating why they have deleted a page or closed a discussion
    ✰ 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Oppose Candidate has minor English issues that normally wouldn't be a problem. However, it seems the candidate has done a few odd things that 28Bytes has pointed out, which also wouldn't normally be a problem to me. That said, if the candidate does odd things, they need to be able to communicate their rationale clearly. I couldn't see this candidate being intentionally malicious, but I can see a controversial mistake made and the candidate unable to communicate their reasons clearly causing a headache for us all. Given a little more time to get a firmer grasp on English and perhaps a clearer understanding of community "norms", I could support this candidate.--v/r - TP 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He has a few minor problems with grammar but personally speaking I've never had problems understanding him when discussing various edits/issues. I think his level of English is certainly functional enough to undertake administrative duties. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of my point. I have no doubt his day to day activities as an admin wouldn't be bothered by his English. However, I anticipate the once in a blue moon controversial decisions that all admins make a couple of times in their time and even folks who are born speaking English sometimes have trouble expressing their rationale. I was having a few problems reading things he wrote in this RfA and it took me a few minutes to find out he was from Hungary before I realized I needed to be really forgiving when reading his words. I understand what he is trying to say when the reasons arnt very controversial, but when it's important to be very clear, concise, and accurate (ex. ArbCom case), he may have trouble there.--v/r - TP 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per above. Concerns with judgement. While you know your stuff, judging by your answers to my questions, I find your recent conduct in at RfA to be unsatisfactory. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, sorry but in addition to my concerns in neutral below, this is too recent and is really too far from good faith (see the first two diffs provided by Mato). Also I don't know what you're trying to achieve by sweeping it under a collapsible box. I'd rather someone who admits they make mistakes and apologises to the user, and you seem unwilling to do either... - filelakeshoe 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Not ready for prime time yet. Concerns about lack of edit summaries, but mostly concerns with communication skills. Bone up on those, and come back in awhile. In the meantime, this is a hard-working editor that the project needs. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now. I'd like to support, but the candidate's approach to other people's RfAs gives me pause. The transcluding of an RfA for someone with 11 edits was a bad call, as was the question-bombing of another candidate. The frequent reference to meaningless statistics in other RfAs also bugs me. Nonetheless, I'm leaning support and may switch after considering what others have to say, as the candidate has done good work elsewhere on the project and from what I can see is generally courteous and responsive. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral opposed my reconfirmation without rationale. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Switching to oppose, per questionable RFA transclusion linked by 28bytes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on Sarek... "Because he opposed RfA of editor X without rationale" would be a somewhat dubious reason to refuse to take a closer look at a candidate's qualifications. But if it's about your RfA that closed three days ago, this is petty at best. Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it's neutral. Now, if it had been, say, Guerillero (talk · contribs), who criticized my "cowboy diplomacy" and lack of GA/DYK writing, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But without knowing why Armbrust opposed, I can't judge his judgement in return. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning towards support since his work with articles and files seems to be generally good. However, I am concerned by looming communication issues. The fact that he hasn't addressed really simple concerns raised on the previous RfA (enabling "alert me when I leave the edit summary blank" in preferences takes a mere second) is a bit baffling, and I know many of you will think this is really dickish and I wouldn't oppose Armbrust for this alone, but I have high standards for English language in an admin and with the grammar mistakes in the question answers, I would be worried about him entering content disputes. I know from my work on cs.wiki how difficult it is to pick out NPOV issues, for example. But good luck, - filelakeshoe 17:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) switched to oppose - filelakeshoe 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Call me naive but I certainly hope that
    WP:COMPETENCE should apply to administrators also! I haven't made up my mind about Armbrust yet (I'm waiting for an answer to my question at least) but nobody should object to someone who looks to see good communication from an administrator candidate. -- Atama頭 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Neutral leaning oppose. The bean-counting of automated edits is something I find concerning, particularly as there are potential RfA candidates I know who would make fantastic admins yet do large amounts of counter vandalism work using automated tools. I also find the conceit that the answer to an RfA question is too close to policy difficult to fathom. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He did alter his oppose shortly afterward: [2]. —
    Talk • Contribs) • 5:33pm • 07:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Not in a way that addressed my concerns... however, I'm aware that his personal !voting criteria at RfA do not reflect how he would function as an admin... and I'm moving this !vote. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning oppose (for now). For lack of edit summaries. My position may change to support or oppose though based on the candidate's answers to future questions.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I respect Armbrust's article work, but I find that 28bytes's diffs concern me. Likewise, I find that the removal of this comment and the editing of other editors' comments is a bit concerning; there are more diffs if you which to dig them up. It's generally considered etiquette to leave others' comments alone, even if they contain grammatical mistakes. I may change my opinion based on answers to the questions, however. —mc10 (t/c) 22:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If a comment was removed, it means that the user has read it and seeing as its his talk page he is allowed to do so. Neither of those edits was controversial, though I didn't see the point in correcting the capitalisation of the second diff you provided. —
    Talk • Contribs) • 5:29pm • 07:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Of course he is allowed to remove a comment, but it's polite to at least reply or send the user a message. And it's also considered etiquette to not edit other's comments. (I don't remember what guideline it was exactly; if anyone can dig it up for me, that would be appreciated.) —mc10 (t/c) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ✰ 18:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Lots of good and some unfortunate bad. Some of the diffs and examples referred to above (e.g., RfA transclusion, lack of edit summary usage) show an unfamiliarity with convention (as opposed to policy). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I was leaning towards support until I saw that 20-30% of edits lack Edi Summaries. Jamietw (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - doesn't pass my flinch test and leaves me with a worrying feeling Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral.
    WP:EDITCOUNTITIS regarding edit summaries aside, I see a good editor who needs to be just a little better before gaining the mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Neutral. No one problem raised is killer, but overall I'm seeing enough problems mentioned (edit summaries, RfA issues listed above plus a !vote to oppose without an explanation, some grammar issues) that I'm not comfortable supporting. Answers to Fastily's questions look to be outstanding (but I'm not the best with images, Fastily did I miss something?). A quick glance at this editor's recent contributions showed an image gnome who does a lot of useful things around here. So summary: very very helpful person, not sure they are ready for the tools. I suspect they will be in a few months. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armbrust_2&oldid=1166569197"