Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Hdt83

Ended: (64/3/1); Scheduled to end 13:12, January 30, 2008 (UTC)

CVU have led to him being entrusted by a seasoned administrator with special rights
on his account to help him combat vandalism.

Hdt83 has also went above and beyond (see under: Template:WCW Video Games) when answering any of my questions. His answers are consistently concise, polite and made in a timely manner.

I believe any objective member of Wikipedia can review his recent contributions and realize he is a competent and resourceful member of Wikipedia. And his adminship would not only encourage his continued positive contributions, but in turn also make Wikipedia a better place. Hdt83... the Pete Rose of Wikipedia. EndlessDan 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly accept this nomination --Hdt83 Chat 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to participate in many different administrative related areas on Wikipedia if granted the tools. I would be very active with blocking vandals at
WP:ANI
to try to help out anybody who needs administrative assistance.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There are several contributions on Wikipedia that I am proud of. One is my anti-vandalism work; I have reported 486 reports to AIV and helped maintain the articles on Wikipedia so that they are vandalism free. Regarding written content, I have improved
Black Canyon of the Gunnison to GA status by locating and citing reliable references. I have also created and worked extensively on Go Skateboarding Day and Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens
in addition to creating a number of other short articles.


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 not been in any major conflicts over editing in the past that have caused me to stress out. If I encounter such conflict in the future, I will be sure to try to come to a consensus with the other editors. If that does not prove successful, I will consult another editor and try to see what others think of the issue before doing anything else.
Follow up on Q3 Any active administrator will be involved in situations that cause conflict, and being able to deal with them calmly is a large part of the job. It's one thing to report vandalism, another to actually block the vandals. So what are the most contentious situations that you have been engaged in, even if you think them relatively insignificant? DGG (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I worked at
WP:AFC, I had to reject several articles that did not meet Wikipedia's standards (notability, verifiability, etc.) and needless to say whenever something you worked on gets rejected, people are not going to be pleased. Luckily for me, the people who persisted eventually stopped after I explained why their articles were rejected so it didn't escalate. Then there was the time that I got blocked about eight months ago and I would say I acted rather calmly during that situation and didn't panic or do anything extreme. --Hdt83 Chat 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Questions by -MBK004

4. What have you learned from the experience of undergoing your previous 4 RfAs?
I would have to say the major thing I have learned is to take things in moderation and follow that advice of others. For example, back around May 2007, I started my first RFA which did not pass. I soon got caught up with this process that I began making monthly self-nominations against the advice other users had given. After a while, I started to take their advice and backed off on this. I have since been working busily with Wikipedia and created several articles and improving them in addition to reverting vandalism. When someone offered to nominate me this month, I was surprised as it was a long time since my last one and with all the work I had done, I had since forgotten about rfa and was busy working on articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdt83 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
While I am open to administrator recall and will place my name there, I think that the current system there is not effective. As I understand, the recall process is entirely voluntary so if you do not want to be on there, then you don't have to which is something I believe should be changed. All admins should be held accountable for their actions so if trouble arises, appropriate action can be taken. However, since not all admins are in recall and one can easily remove his/her name from recall, the current recall process is flawed and ineffective. --Hdt83 Chat 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. What do you want Wikipedia to be in three years?  
(Talk)  17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A:

General comments
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hdt83 before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. <insert audible groan at what's probably (but hopefully not) going to happen next here>
    party) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Per Dihydro. The opposition in the previous RFAs is becoming increasingly capricious and absurd. It's been 8 months since the first one. He's waited the recommended time and waited for a nominator. Hdt83 is a good editor, 500 reports at AIV, etc. Let him help. --JayHenry (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Lucky number 5 eh? :) Jmlk17 06:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. the_undertow talk 06:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I remember not supporting the first 2, but I will now. It's been long enough, and he has still stuck around, so imo he can be trusted. Best of luck, - Zeibura (Talk) 07:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support like last time. - TwoOars 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I opposed last time for your, shall we say, unseemly haste in re-applying (which I was concerned might indicate haste in applying admin actions). However I think that your editing since then has demonstrated a cautious and careful contributor, and there is no hard and fast rule about gaps between RfA's. Consequently my support. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I enjoyed checking the links in Q2, and I've known about Hdt83 for a while. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 08:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Pedro. SpencerT♦C 12:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support It is time to give him the mop. --
    Siva1979Talk to me 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Hdt83 is an excellent user: he should have been made an admin at his last RfA, and probably the one before that too. The most significant opposition in those RfAs was that they were self-nominations, and since Hdt83 has a nominator this time, I see no reason to oppose. He can article-write and vandal-fight, and his civility has improved greatly since the first RfA. He'll make a fine administrator. The amount of nominations, which he was also opposed for, isn't a concern either: the fact that Hdt83 wants to be an administrator is not a bad thing. After all, if he didn't want to be one, why would he run? Acalamari 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - should be just fine - Alison ❤ 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. This is a case of a user being a victim of a process where relatively minor issues have magnified into a numerous pile-on opposes several times over. Let's give him the mop already. henrik•talk 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. This user will make a good admin—no major problems in my opinion. Malinaccier (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Very, very strong support per above. Through interactions with him/her, this user is as friendly as my best friend Melanie. Hdt83 is definitely ready for the mop for this reason and let's hope that this RfA is successful.
    2010 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Support - trustworthy editor.
    talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Strong support - Has been unfortunate in his previous RfAs. Poor mainspace/total edits ratio though ;) EJF (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Now it is the time :) Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support no obvious reason not to. RMHED (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Super-fast Subaru support - I remember this guy from way back when I was just an anon editor, floating about on various IPs. Great Wikipedian and should come back. Excellent
    WikiProject Automobiles editor --Solumeiras (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. 'Support Definitely. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support, can we finally give him the mop? There has been continued improvement from this great editor. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support
    Tucky 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes. WODUP 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Timmeh! 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 02:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No shit. Good luck.
    Dorftrottel 02:19, January 24
    , 2008
    Ah, eloquent as ever. Dlohcierekim 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be. Btw, what happened to WP:DGAF?
    Dorftrottel 02:37, January 24
    , 2008
  29. Support Krasilec's oppose dif's are not sufficient for me to oppose. Dlohcierekim 02:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Expand I believe user has sufficient experience to use and not abuse the extra buttons. Enormous number of reports to AIV. More than meets my standards. No evidence of incivility, incompetence, or other disability noted on talk page. The benefits of promotion will outweigh the potential detriments. Dlohcierekim 06:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support no problems here. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. About time
    talk) 04:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  32. Support Should have gotten the mop last time around. GlassCobra 06:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, should have been done 3 RFAs ago. It clearly takes someone with straight stone cold chilling skills like EndlessDan to finally convince us of Hdt83's value to the project.
    ☎ 11:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  34. Support ·
    AndonicO Hail! 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  35. Support I see nothing in this user's editing history that makes me worry about admin tool abuse. Best of luck! — Scientizzle 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Stone Cold Support ;) Wizardman 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes!! Hdt: the
    father of Stone Cold Chillin!--EndlessDan 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  37. Support. From what I can tell, you could use the extra buttons and you will use them well. But always remember that that is all admin is. Extra buttons. No power, no glory, just a mop and bucket. Most of the oppose votes seem baseless and Catch-22-y. Keeper | 76 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. What the nominator said.--EndlessDan 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Looking at the previous RfAs, I think that it is about time. Everything checks out as far as I am concerned. SorryGuy  Talk  05:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - he'll be fine. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Seen him on the recent changes reverting vandalism. Will make a great admin. King Lopez Contribs 10:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - I've seen Hdt83 around in many places and been impressed with his constructive attitude. Will be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Appears qualified. --Sharkface217 20:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Qualifications seem good. Article writing is good. (For example, Tunatic is nicely sourced and completely written by her/him. [1]) Pigman☿ 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No reason to oppose. Epbr123 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Jeez. This guy got hammered and piled on for not a very good reason (IMO). Just looking back over the past RFA's, it tells me that this voting...er, I mean consensus system has some major flaws. ---CWY2190TC 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Hard working Wikipedian who should use the tools wisely. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support – Per henrik. —Animum (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I have supported you in the past, and will support you again. Good luck!--
    SJP (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  50. Strong Support Great commitment and track to Wikipedia ,only Tenpoundhammer is more unlucky not to be an admin in a earlier RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Mop up! Gromlakh (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Great editor for adminship! Stupid2 (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support - I have come across this user a number of times, and each of those times, I have been very impressed. I'm surprised it has taken five attempts so far, but I'm sure he doesn't need any more. Best of luck. Lradrama 11:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: Agree. --Bhadani (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: I think they will be a good admin. Woody (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Should have been sysopped already, GDonato (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support OK by me. - Philippe | Talk 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support These recent RfA's in the last few months is a very fine example of why we need to reform the RfA system. There is no reason why this user should not be promoted, and there is all the evidence in the world which shows this user has capability, but thanks to the very efficient nature RfA system, that it took 5 nominations just to get this through, simply ridiculous. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I know Hdt83 from his work at AfD and it's something I can (and will) continue to support. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support About time too. Good luck! Dfrg_msc 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per
    adminship is not a big deal. - Triona (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC):[reply
    ]
  64. Support - I've seen Hdt83 around quite a bit and it's been good. The stats and answers to the questions confirm that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - While I appreciate Hdt83's hard work to contain vandalism, I remain unconvinced that this editor has the temperament required to be a good admin. As an example, despite taking part in
    uw-bv}} ([2], [3]), etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    that last one seems to have been over a month ago.DGG (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? He floated left and added a break to {{{BV}}}? That hardly seems to change the template significantly. Dlohcierekim 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I am sorry, but what is wrong here? Tiptoety talk 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is not what the edits did or did not do, but the fact that as recently as just last month Hdt83 was ignoring consensus in order to revert a heavily used vandalism template back to the version that he liked best. Virtually all Wikipedia editors have been on the losing end of consensus at one point or another, but we just grit our teeth and move along, rather than do an end-run around the process. Wikipedia works best when editors work together collaboratively, not when people go cowboying about doing whatever they want. As such, I cannot in good conscience support the RfA of an editor who participates in a discussion, does not like the outcome, ignores the consensus decision, and reverts everyone else in order to get the version he wants. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that it is a big deal, considering the high use of those templates. When communicating with vandals and blocked editors, an inconsistent format of boilerplate messages can have an effect in addition to their content. –Pomte 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Six RfAs in 9 months. Anybody who wants to be an admin that badly shouldn't be an admin. --
    talk) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's five not six, and my intent is to discuss not badger, but did you read the previous RfAs? He was opposed for being too new. Then he was opposed for reapplying too soon and told to wait two months. He waited three months and then was opposed for not having a nominator. So he again waited, for a nominator, and now he's being opposed for... My point is that for Hdt83 this whole process has been RFA at its worst -- an arbitrary exercise in jumping through an ever-moving hoop -- and to what benefit to the encyclopedia? I know you're a reasonable editor, Malleus. Has this been a reasonable process for Hdt? --JayHenry (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the logic in that someone who wants to be an admin shouldn't be one? Majorly (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Power hunger! And this comes as no surprise. This is simply what we get for the idiotic egalitarianism that is tolerating invalid rationales. Now people already believe this is a valid argument. No wonder. We might as well propose another RfA reform in the direction of pure votes right now. And also for AfD while we're at it.
    Dorftrottel 13:12, January 24
    , 2008
    But what power??!! I'm an admin on this project, and three others (and a former bureaucrat) - I've never felt any power ever! :/ Seems it's non-admins who only think it is power seeking. And how can it be seeking... he was nominated by someone else. Unless, of course that person is his sockpuppet... </joke> Majorly (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a pretty good answer that tackles the same issue.
    Dorftrottel 17:14, January 24
    , 2008
    This is the sixth fifth since May last year. That's an average of something like one RfA every 6 or 7 weeks. Anyone who wants to be an admin that badly shouldn't be one. --
    talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above comment was unhelpful. Hdt83 seems ready to be a sysop, so it is worth for him/her to have an RfA. Please see
    2010 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above comment is perhaps unhelpful in your opinion, not in mine. --
    talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Why should people who want to be an admin not be allowed to be one? Makes no sense. Majorly (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If a candidate really wants to be an administrator, then it doesn't mean that he/she "shouldn't be one". They can be one if they are ready, even if they really want to be one. See
    2010 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Why do you persist in misrepresenting what I have said? I said that anyone who wants to be an admin that badly ought not to be one. I have never said that anyone who wants to be admin should not be one; that would of course be an absurd thing to say. --
    talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    For me, the "too soon" argument holds water when sufficient time has not passed for 1) the nom to have improved in skill and 2) the nom needs to be re-assessed. Since, I generally support nom's with 3,000 edits and 3 months experience it's a good rule of thumb for a second look. In this instance, I've looked the nom over and believe he will be an asset, even though the 3 monts/3000 edits have not elapsed since the last one. Dlohcierekim 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose seems to be about power hunger. I'm afraid I don't see the buttons has particularly being something to long for due to that. Maybe the user has a sincere desire to help the project! Are there dif's to support the claim? We should see them. However, multi RfA's are not in and of themselves prima facia evidence of anything more than enthusiasm. Dlohcierekim 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent) It seems (and it just seems) that people who oppose on the pure basis of the "power" of an admin all tend to be non-admins. I opposed last time because I felt multiple applications were a rush - and we don't need admins rushing. I stand by that oppose, as I stand by my support this time round. But to oppose on the basis of "power" is only a misguided perception of those who think adminship equates to power. Here, however we are digressing. Malleus is not opposing for reasons of "power" but of "desire" (best term I can think of). Wether that's a good reason to oppose is another thing, but I do fell his personal (and totally acceptable) reasoning is getting left behind in a seperate debate that does not need to be on this candidate's RfA, and was not instigated by Malleus. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An excellent summary. I have made no comment at all about "power hunger", and that is not the basis for my opposition, no matter how many times other editors may try to portray that it is. My opposition is solidly based on wanting to be an admin too much, the evidence for which is the number of RfAs in a relatively short period of time. I do not particularly expect anyone else to agree with my reasoning, but I would be grateful if I could be allowed to express my opinion without any further misrepresentation. --
    talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I see. The word was someone else's interpretation of your rationale and I fell into the misinterpretation. My apologies. At any rate. It's good to discuss these things. Can't say I understand the oppose rationale or agree with it, but I certainly respect your right to it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale might make for an interesting discussion elsewhere, but this RfA is aboutHdt83, not me or my views, as I hope that NHRHS2010 will now accept. --
    talk) 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well, it is still OK to want to be an admin, but Hdt83 showed lots of improvement since his/her last RfA. And he/she got nominated by someone else who felt that he/she was ready.
    2010 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's all fine and dandy then, but it doesn't change my opinion in the slightest. Just to reiterate, I HAVE NEVER SAID IT IS NOT OK TO WANT TO BE AN ADMIN. OK? Please stop suggesting that I have ever said any such thing. --
    talk) 02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Could you please be nicer when discussing this? It is not really necessary to write not-so-nice messages in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. I have written edit summaries in all caps last June [4] and this is the response I got from an admin known as
    2010 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Pleeeezzzz, not that hypocritical
    talk) 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It was not my intention to put words in your mouth. Could you explain the difference between "Anybody who wants to be an admin that badly shouldn't be an admin" and the "per power hunger" rationale?
    Dorftrottel 05:22, January 26
    , 2008
    I would be quite happy to discuss the difference with you, but not here, in someone else's RfA. --
    talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What bad is power hunger. Does it make a bad administrator? No!  
    (Talk)  17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What has power hunger got to do with anything? --
    talk) 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no. Back to 1FA. We went through this back in the middle of 2006. It would exclude most of the current admins, including me. Dlohcierekim 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that therefore be a bad thing in your opinion? --
    talk) 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

#Oppose Doesn't yet pass my

t/e 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral
  1. Sitting in neutral territory. While Hdt83 did a lot of great work in wiki, but as some opposers pointed out he went through a lot of RFA in a short period of time. Having a lot of RFA shouldn't be an oppose reason, but I would say that this practice leaves a bit to be desired. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the opposition in the last RfA? Most of it was extremely frivolous, and the opposition in the RfA before that wasn't much better: they were mainly "please wait some more" and "user should have waited for a nominator", neither of which provided us with any reasons to why he would abuse or misuse the tools, and now that he has a nominator, he has addressed the previous "issues". Why is it a bad thing that Hdt83 wants to be an administrator? After all, he has the experience needed, and if he didn't want to be one, why would he run? Acalamari 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, self-nom or not is not one of my consideration to support or oppose. It's the frequency of RfAs that holds me back from supporting. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the frequency of nominations an indicator to how Hdt83 would use the tools? Acalamari 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One has to consider what the motivation might be for so many nominations in such a short space of time and extrapolate from there. --
    talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (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/Hdt83_5&oldid=1145854257"