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

(talk page) (45/39/9); Closed Mon, 11 May 2009 22:42:06 (UTC) by Avi (talk)

Download (talk · contribs) – Download is a highly active user I noticed in my wikiwork who has an excellent track record as an editor. After reviewing his history, I have decided to nominate him for adminship.

Download has been an editor since April 2008 and has amassed over 22,000 edits in that time. He has been active in many areas of the wiki, including AIV, CSD, and the user adoption program. Further, he has written and contributed to several articles, including a GA, Linkin Park. Also he has been an active member of the Math Wikiproject and contributes to community discussions.

If selected as an administrator, I believe he will continue his AIV efforts and assist in the other administrative tasks. Download has the requisite knowledge and has shown the skills necessary to be an admin, which is why I am nominating him today. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by GT5162 - Download has a lot of experience in many areas of Wikipedia. He is a very polite, mature and helpful user who has helped many less experienced users by adopting them and creating his adoptee's classroom to help new users learn about Wikipedia and encourage them to contribute.

If this RfA succeeds, he will no doubt use his administrator rights for the benefit of the encyclopedia. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by MC10 - Download is a good-natured user. He apoligizes for his mistakes, has an Adoptee's classroom, has a majority of edits to mainspace, and helped out in the community. He also commonly participates in AFDs, WP:AIV, etc. Also, Download constantly fights vandalism, and will continue to do so, as he states in question 1. By making him an admin, he will further fight vandalism, commit to the connmunity, and be a plus to the admins. MC10 | Sign here! 04:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words; I accept. -download ׀ sign! 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Having done work in a wide range of areas on Wikipedia, I plan on working in a variety of admin's areas. Having done a lot of work with Huggle and Lupin's anti-vandal tool to combat vandalism, I'd start with WP:AIV - there's always a need for more admins there. I'd also work in WP:RPE and WP:RFPP, watching both pages and dropping by once in a while to appropriately fulfill or deny requests. In the future, I might go in to deletion and sock puppet investigations when I have more experience as an admin. In addition, I'm currently learning JavaScript, so I will try to help any projects that require knowledge in that field. Finally, I'd check Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators for users who are in need of admin help.

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

A: I'm quite proud of my 100 and more reports to WP:AIV, and my numerous typo corrections using WP:AWB. I've also had, and will continue, a successful adoption program, in which I've adopted several adoptees and taught them the basics of Wikipedia and how to stay away from vandalism. Recently I've also taken to creating articles I've found at WP:Requested articles, creating a plethora of articles (though I'm embarrassed to say that most are stubs). I tend to create articles in the mathematics and music fields, as they are my area of interest and expertise. One of my current projects is helping one of my adoptees create the Vatican City portal, which I hope will turn out to be great.

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've had a few conflicts with either way about notability and what should and should not be included in the article. I tended to be the inclusionist, and usually opted for content, such as Washington State Mathematics Championship, to remain on Wikipedia. On the corresponding deletion debate, our friend Uncle G showed us we were both wrong on our thoughts about notability; notability is not subjective. From past experiences, I've learned to take the issue to the corresponding talk page and discuss it rather than immediately reverting. In addition, I've learned to stay away from topics in which I have a conflict of interest.

A few users have also commented on my miscorrections using WP:AWB to articles; I had been miscorrecting the titles of French literature, as shown in this edit. In those cases, I apologized and tried to keep on the alert and stop making those mistakes. I will definitely be more careful in the future, whether or not am an administrator.

4. Question from Ched

Noticing your "Say no to flagged revisions" graphic, I'd like to ask; what your reasoning for being opposed to this? (there's no right or wrong answer for my purposes, I'm just curious about your line of thinking here)

A: Although I didn't get to the voting for the trial in time, my reasoning was that it would be futile to flag every single revision to Wikipedia. There simply wouldn't be that many users up to the task. Having automatic flagging, say every 24 hours, only complicates the task. We already have software such as Huggle and Twinkle which are able to patrol recent changes and revert or tag for deletion when necessary. As for adding false information that is not discernable by the patrollers, I believe it could be combatted by those who have the pages watched. Another line of thought is that the implementation of Flagged Revisions might discourage anonymous or new users to refrain from editing. After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and any changes made appear immediately. -download ׀ sign! 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to flag "every single revision" as it is easy to check the cumulative effect of several edits. — CharlotteWebb 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An few strictly optional questions from user:Tempodivalse:

5. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an admin, you will inevitably come across a situation where you will need to weigh consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in an AfD, article content dispute, et cetera.

A: Consensus is when editors come to a conclusion about an editor, a proposal, etc. They don't necessarily need to agree; for example, even if an article met A7, an article's creator and fans would still opt for it to be kept. However, if an editor had an extremely good reason to explain how their thinking went, it'd probably weigh the strength of his/her's judgement. AfD's and others are not a vote; therefore, if editors piled on one point of view, I wouldn't always follow them if the other point of view had good justification. "Wikipedia runs by consensus, not by strength in numbers. In conclusion, I believe consensus is when editors justify their opinions about the topic, and the others are swayed towards or away a single opinion in their line of thought. Hope that makes sense. -download ׀ sign! 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Are there any Wikipedia policies that you particularly agree with? Conversely, are there any policies you particularly disagree with?

A: Over my time on Wikipedia, I've strongly supported the three-revert rule. It doesn't hurt to talk it over on a talk page and reach consensus rather than edit-warring. In addition, it saves memory and bandwidth that could go towards something useful. Verifiability is also a policy I agree with. I do not, however, agree with WP:NOR. Original research can be a very useful source in some cases, especially interviews. One might not be able to find information regarding a person or subject without conducting an interview. For example, The New Mikemoral and I were working on the article Farid Suleman. However, we could barely find any personal information about the subject and resorted to sending letters to Citadel Broadcasting for more information. Though replies never came, original research could potentially be a very important resource for topics.

Question from Steve Crossin

7. Administrators, on a day-to-day basis, will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form. What past experience do you have in dispute resolution? (MedCab, RFCs.) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. One particular example was a dispute regarding whether Math Champion should be banned at WP:ANI. Math Champion had been jokingly vandalizing user pages, including mine. I discussed this situation with him, and he later apologized at the page and promised to stop vandalizing. He's now a good editor, doing vandalism reverting with Huggle. An adoptee, Axmann8, had gotten blocked multiple times for violating WP:SOAP and adding political propoganda to pages. I'll admit I didn't have much to do in the role of reaching consensus with his community banning as I did not approve of his editing; however, I tried to teach him about Wikipedia policies and how to avoid getting blocked in the future. -download ׀ sign! 00:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ceranthor

8. I asked this question at another RFA, and I think it should become traditional. What do you think constitutes the difference between a major edit and a minor edit?

A. In my view, major edits are those that add substantial content to the page. This doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, but should be something that gives more information to the reader. Minor edits are typo fixes, vandalism reverts, stub-tagging, etc. These don't have much of an effect to the reader; however, tagging them as minor edits would be useful to bots and users who scan the history of the page. I myself, and probably some other editors out there, use minor edits minimally as checking the box is a little bit troublesome. -download ׀ sign! 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Can you name any articles which you have contributed to substantially, and how you benefited them?

A. I'll admit that I'm not much of a writer. I do, however, write a lot of stubs. I have WP:Requested articles and subpages watched, and try to fulfill requests there. Recent articles I've written are Gnomenreigen, Seven ways to greet a neighbor, Amadinda, and others. As for larger articles, I've done some work with articles regarding the Bellevue School District, but I will no longer do so as I have a conflict of interest. In these articles, I added significant amounts of content. I've also done work on Igor Panarin, where I at first expanded and sourced information. -download ׀ sign! 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from either way

10.Could you explain the rationale behind this edit? I'm just curious why you would edit an archive three months later to reword something.

A. I really did not like the way I phrased that response, and could not refrain from editing it. There's no policy against editing a comment from long ago, so in conclusion, I could not stop from rephrasing it.

No policy, perhaps, but there is a behavioural guideline. — neuro^(talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Unionhawk

11. What makes you think that more admins are needed at AIV? Currently, there is only one unresolved report at AIV.

A. Well, admins are retiring at an ever-increasing rate, as shown in the discussion at WT:RfA and previous discussions. In addition, more and more anonymous IPs and users are using Wikipedia each day, at a high rate. Some of these accounts will be tempted to take advantage of the "anyone can edit" feature and vandalize. -download ׀ sign! 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

12. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: Yes, non-admin editors have, in my opinion, as many rights as admins. They can make mistakes, and learn from them, while admins are pressured to set an example for other editors. Non-admin editors should not be considered lower than admins, and in disputes, admins should not use their power to pressure other editors. As in admin, I would treat admins and non-admin editors equally in disputes, and avoid using my influence to overwhelm other users. -download ׀ sign! 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify then, you see "admins" as being a different class of creature to "Wikipedians"? Groomtech (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Admins only have much more of a responsibility than non-admin editors, and shouldn't be treated as a big deal. -download ׀ sign! 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should reconsider your answer. It shows very clearly that you view "Wikipedians" as disparate from "admins". seresin ( ¡? )  21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had interpreted the question wrong, and thought by Wikipedians Groomtech meant non-admin editors. I've edited my answer. Thanks -download ׀ sign! 22:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Yintan

13. To Q3 above you answer "I've had a few conflicts with either way about notability and what should and should not be included in the article" yet in this RfC you accuse him of nothing less than WikiHounding, causing trouble, "hanging around" at this RFA, and "pushing for oppose votes". You also say you're "extremely stressed and tired because of this repeated harrassment". I'd say that's not just "a few conflicts". Could you explain this difference to me?

A: At first, I did not want to stir up trouble with either way. I was aware that he was following my edits and trying to cause trouble with me; however, I tried to avoid it and make uncontroversial edits. However, when Neutralhomer and FMAFan1990 both complained about his behavior at ANI, I decided to testify as well. -download ׀ sign! 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Download: Download (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Download can be found here.

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

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While I don't personally consider heavy article work to be an important criterion for adminship, I did notice something strange - in the nomination statement, Download's contributions to Linkin Park are specifically mentioned: but upon looking these up all I can see are two Huggle reverts and one edit in October in which he adds the word "guitar". Have I missed something here? ~ mazca ^t|c 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all a bit fuzzy to me as I haven't had any thoughts related to this topic for a long while. Looking at my userpage, I added it to my "Significant Contributions" list somewhere between December and January. I was also confused while looking at userpage previously as to why I couldn't find the content I added to Linkin Park. I do remember that I did contribute a bit to articles about their songs. -download ׀ sign! 00:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support I checked to see if the candidate was an admin or not. --Caspian blue 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Very friendly user, who will be an asset with the mop. Good luck.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support by default. I've noticed Download around in a lot of different areas. Always adds insight to discussions. Over a year and 20,000 edits? Of course I'm going to support. I trust download to use the tools wisely. ;) — Ched :  ?  22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak support I think this thread sums it up: knowledge of policy is not as great as I'd usually expect, but very coachable when he/she makes mistakes.--chaser - t 23:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC) can't support in light of the AFDs Either way has provided below.--chaser - t 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Even though I'm not an editor who believes the count makes the editor, I am truly baffled by the number of this users edit equaling over 22,000 in just a few months. I'm sorry but that completely blows me away. Also, from my experience with this editor, he is nice, civil, and well mannered. And though the user page argument is good, you must also look and see that he has over 13,077 of those edits are to the main space. Without a doubt deserves mop.--(NGG) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Somebody could easily rack up 25,000 edits in a month with Huggle or AWB; surely there's more to adminship than the edit count? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   According to these stats, 66.82% of Download's edits are automated tools. I repeat that, 66.82%. That is alarmingly high! either way (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I do plan on working at WP:AIV, which is why I've tried to get more experience with vandalism reverting and reporting. -download ׀ sign! 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   None the less, just because a editor has a large amount on automated edits reverting vandalism doesn't mean that should take for the quality. Reverting vandalism or adding content, both are good work to me. Also, like I said, It's not like I believe the count makes the editor, it's just the number stunned me.--(NGG) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Both good work, yes, but hardly comparable. The point Julian was trying to make isn't that the edits are worthless, it is that with automated tools you can rack them up with little or no thought in a tiny period of time and not have the experience and knowledge yet that such a high number would suggest. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes I see your point. His automated edits amass to over 15,000.--(NGG) 23:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed. Noting that he only had 22,586 edits to start with (with 13,000 in the mainspace) that does leave things rather thin on the ground. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   And about 32.5% of the edits overall are from AWB. Assuming that all of his edits with AWB were in the main space, that's 56% of his mainspace edits. either way (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support – I've seen this user everywhere, s/he is very helpful and friendly, and would no-doubt be a net positive the the project as admin. No major concerns here. TheAE talk/sign 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support As nominator. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Good answers to questions, seems to understand policy and can be trusted. No concerns. tempodivalse [☎] 00:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support As nom. MC10 | Sign here! 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Answers are satisfactory, seems to have a better knowledge of policy than the opposers seem to suggest. This probably won't pass now, but you will hopefully be an admin one day. Ceranthor 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support — Overall, a great guy who has the best interests of the project in mind. Martin's opposing point brings up what I consider a valid argument, but I don't want to oppose an otherwise solid candidate over lack of "wiki-maturity" (to use Martin's word, I can't think of another term that fits better into context) — especially considering the lack of administrators lately. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Appears competent and collegial. I don't see anything especially worrying in the oppose arguments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Friendly and civil user. Would be good in conflict resolution.  Marlith (Talk)  02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Friendly and helpful. I reviewed the opposes as of this writing, and I don't find anything seriously contrary to the spirit of policy. A little confusion on the fine points of copyright law is not exactly uncommon among our admins. As he's not planning to work in CSD or AfD closure right away, I see no issues. Ray^Talk 02:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per my comments in Wikipedia:Editor review/download. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Download is a civil, patient, pleasant and intelligent editor. Attempts by his opposers to disqualify him based on isolated AfD arguments smells of mean spirited overkill. I have no problems with his contributions. Good luck, Download! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These "isolated AFD arguments" are about articles he's created or helped to create. They represent a bulk of his editing contributions as of late. I wouldn't consider them "isolated." either way (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I know you wouldn't -- I have noticed your presence in these AfDs. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Support. I've seen Download around and he does good work. I'm not concerned with the opposes here as he seems to be a net positive. Valley2city^‽ 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, but could use admin coaching. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to have misunderstood how it works; admin coaching is a process for users who want to be admins. Ironholds (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, I will most definitely consider finding an admin coach after this RfA ends (I'm planning on letting it go its full length as I want as much advice as possible). -download ׀ sign! 04:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I should have phrased my vote differently. I meant he should not use all of the powers given to him until he has learned how to use them. Like admin coaching but post-adminship. I would have liked to see that Download had been coached before the RFA but per below, he should receive his adminship now. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. Offset spurious oppose. Hope to see this user try again with more experience. Dlohcierekim 05:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, are you opposing or are you supporting? —Mythdon t/c 05:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the editor is supporting with the intention of mitigating the harmful effect of a particular oppose !vote on the candidacy because he feels that !vote was spurious, i.e. lacking in merit. Skomorokh 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. Having thought it through, adding specialist admin rationale as I believe will be a benefit in the requested area. Would urge some remediation in copyvio issues. Rewrite from scratch. Dlohcierekim 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support - Good user. On a different note I like your bubble tea template. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 11:15, 5 May 2009
19. Support Net positive, opposes are well meaning but not convincing to me. Even if Download fails here, I think he will get through next time. Why not have him now? He won't block Jimbo or delete the main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support as co-nom. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Download has been a great benefit to Wikipedia, from helping users in wiki text and adopting users to updating and monitoring several Wikipedia pages daily and reverting vandalism. He also helped me out when I needed to know Wikipedia guidelines. He used his rollback privileges maturely, and I believe that him as a sysop will be a great asset and benefit to Wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Definately, I see that download is extremely active and so would make a great admin. SD5 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - the opposes raise some valid concerns, however looking at the links provided, I'm impressed by the civil way you've handled criticism. If this request isn't successful, hopefully you'll try again in 6-8 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak support. Have good sense in general, but needs to be more careful with following guidelines and policies. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - nothing more to say FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - I see nothing wrong with Download being an admin....full support. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 7, 2009 @ 01:40
28. Support Per TheAE. I thought s/he was already an admin. Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 04:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support as per Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC). Provided sound advice and formal support to me as a new user in a considered and balanced manner. Is making a positive contribution. Clearly has strenghts (e.g. high volume simple edits, good sound technical editing knowledge) and weakness (?limited article contributions, some concerns about focus on his local/knowledge base). Support as per the criteria There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA. No risk here. He will be a positive addition to the admin group Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair reasoning, but it seems redundant to say support per your own rationale ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC). I didnt use my own rationale. Quote is directly from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30. Support tentatively - clearly dedicated, as long as is careful should be okay. Note that we do have safety valves to discuss admin behaviour at WP:AN/I or even arbcom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Weak Support. While there appear to be some minor issues with misunderstanding of exact details, I think there should be no problems as there is no indication the tools would be abused. Adminship is no big deal, so as long as Download is careful and ask questions before doing things about which he is unsure, I don't foresee any problems. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - great editor. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support helps a lot of people by adopting them. --Editpower100 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support: Fabulous editor. South Bay (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Weak support. The opposes are concerning, but I see them as more he'd misuse the tools rather than abuse them, worst case scenario. He'll grow as he learns the position, I don't think he's gonna try a controversial unblock in his first month or anything like that. Wizardman 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Very weak support I have only met him once, when he signed my guestbook. I signed his in return, and was rewarded with a barnstar "reading the small print" and making a pun with the word download. I have seen no signs that he will abuse the tools, but this social aspect makes me a bit uncomfortable. Thanks, gENIUS101 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. I believe that the editor genuinely wants to assist WikiPedia and that he generally takes his time in making decisions. I am not impressed by the huge edit counts only because I had a very hard time finding decent examples to list in my support. A small part of me says that the candidate is looking to improve the gene pool of the wikipedia admins so to speak, but I do not think he is applying out of frustration. Zab (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Another one I've spotted around. Since this is supposedly no big deal I see no reason to oppose. It would be inappropriate to assume users ought to act like robots and even robots are likely to make mistakes. --candle•wicke 00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. After reviewing this user's work here, I believe that he is ready to be given the tools. I don't see how he'll abuse them, and even if he accidentally misuses them early in his adminship, I'm sure that certain mistakes can quickly be fixed and that he can learn from them. I highly doubt he'll do something stupid with them, so I'm willing to let him have a chance. He appears to meet all of the expected criteria for an admin, and has stayed away from areas that are controversial.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. This doesn't look like it's going to pass this time around, but don't let that discourage you, and I'd like to add my support. You're a good user, and after addressing the concerns raised in the oppose section, you should be ready for adminship in a few months time. Good luck. Acalamari 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - the diffs raised by opposing editors show me that Download is occasionally less than perfect, but he seems entirely trustworthy. He has consistently avoided aggression, aimed to protect the content of wikipedia, and tried to reach consensus in those diffs. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I agree with you. We need more expirienced anti-vandalism users as admins.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - Have only had good interactions with download. Would become a great admin :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 20:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Knows what he's doing, seems to have a sound understanding of WP Policy and would be assisting in the much needed nitty gritty. I think he'd do a good job. HJMitchell You rang? 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. This user would make a great sysop,very trusted.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This user is unquestionably a net positive benefit to Wikipedia. He is friendly, welcoming, and readily admits to mistakes. These are the makings of a great admin. I have concerns however about whether he has reached the level of required wiki-maturity yet. There are a lot of edits to his userspace, making me wonder about whether he views this as some kind a social club. There is evidence of some inappropriate behaviour here and there; nothing too alarming. I find the comment "... adopted several adoptees and taught them ... how to stay away from vandalism" really quite odd: it should go without saying that you are not coaching vandals! Anyhow, keep up the good work and don't be discouraged however this nomination goes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   To explain my high amounts of editsto the userspace, other than those to my userpage, is that I have question pages for my adoptees in my userspace. I've had several adoptees which accounts for quite a lot of those edits in the userspace. I won't be discouraged, as advice is always welcome for improvement. -download ׀ sign! 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Quite a lot, yes, but of the last 500 edits to the userspace you have made (and this includes edits to other people's userpages/whatever) I count 121 edits to your userpage, awards page or guestbook. Significantly these 500 userspace edits are in the last month and a half; 17 March through to 4 May. I count 157 to your adoptees pages; you spend almost as much time fiddling with your userpage and assorted other things as you do contacting/helping the five users you were adopting throughout that period. The does rather undermine your "my adoptees explain the amount of time I spend on my userspace" point. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I really have no idea why I made so many edits to my userpage during that period, but thanks for my advice; I'll work on it. -download ׀ sign! 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough, but 60% of his edits are to articles and about a tenth of those are to userspace. In the broad scheme...--chaser - t 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to play devil's advocate, I've got 4432 edits to the User namespace (350 to User:EVula alone, but also 49 to User:EVula/fun, which is decidedly not encyclopedic). Just because someone spends time in userspace doesn't mean that they're not mature... though I suppose an argument could be made that I'm not, either. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per the userspace edits and his answer to question four. He seemed to have grasped completely the wrong end of the stick in regards to the poll; firstly the flagged revisions trial is solely for BLPs, and secondly the edits do appear instantaneously to the user who makes them. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. User does not have a good grasp on basic copyright, notability, and verifiability guidelines and policies as expressed through his arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington State Mathematics Championship, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math is Cool Championships. He continuously asserts that there is notability, yet, provides no sources. Download also edits consistently in areas where he has a conflict of interest which may be an issue when adding admin tools into the mix. either way (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that this thread shows a lot of what concerns me about this user and his lack of knowledge, as well as his conflict of interest-based editing (he was advocating keeping a list of names in the article that included his own name). This took place just a few weeks ago; way too soon to show a major change. either way (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   However, the list had proper sources, and the competitions listed are considered notable by me and others. I now try to stay away from COI editing, which is why I have not made a major edit to the article for two or so weeks. -download ׀ sign! 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "Me and others" didn't provide sources to prove notability. You just kept saying "it's notable, it's notable" even when presented with counter examples. You never provide sources to prove notability. You just insist it exists. Take any of the AFDs I've listed in my oppose. Here's one of your !votes: "Keep High news coverage. -download | sign! 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)" (the article has zero sources and you provided none to back up that claim). either way (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Download isn't going to work in the AFD section anytime soon, so this shouldn't be a problem. MC10 | Sign here! 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Great, but an admin still needs to know the basic policies of Wikipedia. These AFDs involve articles he has created or helped to create with his adoptees. We don't want admins who violate policy and guidelines, regardless of their involvement with AFD or not. either way (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This response to a question above shows a horrible lack of good faith. I was "trying to cause trouble"? That attitude is a clear example of why you are not close to being ready to be an administrator. either way (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:HARRASS applies more than WP:AGF here. When multiple users ask you to stop following them around, you should stop, especially as an admin. -download ׀ sign! 02:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but you should be assuming good faith until given evidence to the contrary. Every action I have taken has been a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. The fact that others are upset that their edits have been (justifiably) called into question does not create a situation where I am acting in bad faith. either way (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I applaud your efforts to benefit Wikipedia; however, you were asked to stop your behavior multiple times by editors in good standing but have not stopped. If I was in your position, I would immediately stop when three editors voice their concerns. -download ׀ sign! 03:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I still don't see how this excuses you from assuming good faith. either way (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Weak Oppose Download has had his account since April '08, yes, but he's really only been active since the beginning of this year, with the vast majority of his edits coming in the last three months. That, combined with the evidence from Juliancolton and Either way, lead me to believe that this user still needs more time before being granted the bit. However, I look forward to seeing this editor again and supporting. GlassCobra 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sorry, I hate to do this, but I feel uneasy about supporting. This worries me a bit, as well as AWB issues like this, RC patrol issues like this, heavy userspace editing and lack of recent editing activity (before a few months ago), and issues with core policies as demonstrated by the diffs Either way (talk · contribs) has presented. I also wasn't satisfied that you have the adequate skills in dispute resolution to be an admin, and your answer to my question didn't sway my opinion there. Sorry. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Though user is helpful and civil, I with the help of others found that theres is no proof that User is familiar with guidelines and policies because 68.83 percent(over 15,000/22,000+)of his edits are automated. Also per eitherway.--(NGG) 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm sorry but I must Oppose. I was involved in a discussion regarding an article Download created:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor. My observation is that Download is polite and well-meaning and tenacious but doesn't fully understand some basics such as copyright, reliable references, verifiability, notability, original research, and synthesis, which are crucial to the encyclopedia. In the end I don't trust him to use administrator tools to close a deletion discussion or address copyright violation notices, to give two examples, at this time. I would certainly be willing to change my opinion later. Drawn Some (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose The recent AFD with the copyright issue shows a lack of understanding with policy. I would recommend that you hold off a bit on the AWB edits and focus on trying things by hand for a bit. When you slow down and look at things by hand it forces you to think about policies and gets you familiar with these sort of things. Get involved in some typical admin areas AIV, RFPP, AFD, UAA, etc. and get a feel for how things are done. Your heart is in the right place and you seem to have good intentions, I just think you need a bit more time to get a grasp of policy. If I might make a suggestion, why not seek out another admin who would be willing to be an admin coach for you? Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I will certainly consider that. Thanks, -download ׀ sign! 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Download doesn't plan on working in AFD yet. MC10 | Sign here! 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Weak Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor. The user does not know what a copyvio is, and though has a good intent, I'm not sure the user knows such things good enough to be an admin. The above people put forth valid points that I cannot ignore, although I've seen download around a lot and have been pleased with some of the user's contributions. Tavix |  Talk  02:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Says the user who nominated Child Of Midnight not a few weeks ago. Tell me, how many more do we have now then we did then?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
       1. We have 847 as of Friday, 11:34(UTC) ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          1. That wasn't my question, please read it before responding further.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Also, please explain your ideal admin-to-article ratio.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not feed the trolls. Daedalus I have to believe that this isn't the first time you have seen this. Just ignore him. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Regretful oppose Download is friendly and helpful, and my interactions with him have been positive, but the issues raised about the recent AfD make me feel he's not quite ready for the mop; copyvio in particular is very serious and I think admins need to be pretty unapologetic about removing it. I will almost certainly support if you run again in several months and can show that you've gained some more knowledge of this and related content policies. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also (and this is only a minor quibble), I'm not sure about this edit... no need to get into the whole HK/PRC yada yada here, but basically it seems you introduced a possible error (the PRC doesn't have the same government as HK, so their responses to swine flu are not necessarily the same and can't be interchanged like that) in response to a minor wording issue (listing HK among "countries") that could have been solved by changing the wording elsewhere in the sentence. Again, not a major thing, and I wouldn't oppose over it if it were the only thing...just figured I should mention it since this RfA is probably a good opportunity for constructive criticism. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the suggestion. I guess I should have just changed the wording. -download ׀ sign! 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose. I've always liked your comments, and I like what I see of your work and dedication. My sense is you got serious about Wikipedia starting around December, and 6 months of serious work is sort of a minimum requirement for me. If you don't pass this time around, try WP:ER 3 months from now. Please get a better grasp on WP:COI. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Have concerns after reading above about issues including copyright, notability, and verifiability guidelines, and WP:AFD, WP:COI issues. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Per cluefulness concerns brought up by others. I also get a niggling sense of immaturity here. Friday (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Opppose: poor understanding of Wikipedia policy shown at the linked AFDs. I suggest brushing up on your policy knowledge, specifically areas such as WP:Notability and WP:Copyright, before submitting another RFA in future. Robofish (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, in the answer to question 6: 'Original research can be a very useful source in some cases'. I respect your opinion, but WP:Verifiability is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, and WP:NOR exists for a very good reason; not just to stop people adding hoaxes and the like, but because it's one of the essential parts of what Wikipedia is. Until you appreciate that, I don't think you can be an administrator. Robofish (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose largely due to dissatisfaction with Q9 and Q10. Would prefer that an admin have more experience writing articles. I'm also concerned with the arguments brought up by MSGJ and either way. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose Lack of clue - "Original research can be a very useful source in some cases." No, it can't. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Regretfully. Much of the opposers raise points that both worry and lend me to believe the user is not ready for the tools. I do however believe that, after learning some more about core policies and guidelines, that they'll be blocking and deleting in around half a year.  GARDEN  18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Per the comment posted by Friday above. I'm sorry, and I would likely support in a few months. America69 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Does not understand notability policies evidenced by comments at AFD. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. There are too many issues that make me think you are not yet going to be a net positive as an admin. Come back soon. Majorly talk 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. As demonstrated by the AfDs given by either way, Download does not understand core wikipedia policies. Rami R 14:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose - Sorry, but I don't have a good feeling about this. The links that Either way provided above are problematic, particularly regarding copyright and verifiability issues. I am also greatly concerned by the answer to question 6. No original research is a core content policy, and the answer reads like the user was prepared to ignore it if Citadel Broadcasting had responded. If information has not been published in reliable sources, it shouldn't be included in an article. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose per above concerns with your grasp on such policies as WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. An admin needs to know these like the back of his hand. ThemFromSpace 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose for now. Candidate seems polite, but needs to better understand how Wikipedia works before being given the tools. To be clear, a combination of clue and policy knowledge is needed. I would suggest spending less time fighting vandals and more time discussing content disputes with those involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. Outstanding contributor especially in vandal fighting. Thousands of quick thinking automated edits to improve the encyclopedia. If you want to mop up with the stronger tools, you will need to show the community how you make decisions that require research and a firm grasp on policy. Please continue to do what you do best. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose posts such as this show concern about how user will handle stressful situations as an admin. Not talking the evil age word, but maturity does not appear to be there. Also arguments at AfD (as referenced above) do not show clear understanding of policy. StarM 01:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply - Download is showing concern for another admin, who is also troubling me and a few others (I've gone as far as to declare any more reverts of my edits by him vandalism). FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    By threatening to retire because he doesn't like a long standing admin's actions? He's going to get a lot worse shit than that as an admin and threatening to reture is not the way to handle it. Calling admins' actions "vandalism" isn't either. Look at User_talk:Yourname for just a tiny idea of what admins get to deal with. Adminship requires maturity that is not present/coming across here. StarM 01:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I must have phrased it poorly. I should have meant that I had considered retiring due to his harrassment, but I have no intentions to retire now; I'm way too addicted to Wikipedia. -download ׀ sign! 01:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not better. seresin ( ¡? )  02:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28. The answer to Q6 WRT original research is pretty ridiculous. This comment is also poor—it demonstrates, among other things, that he clearly misunderstands canvassing. The edit from the same conversation provided by StarM above also reflects poorly on the candidate. As noted by Friday and StarMf, maturity seems to be lacking. seresin ( ¡? )  01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose - I like the candidate as both an editor and a friend, but I am unwilling to support this request at this time due to numerous issues which have been brought up. It is clear to me that the candidate is not ready for the extra responsibilities of adminship at this particular point in time, but I more than happy to support a future request on the assumption that the kinds of issues being brought up have been resolved by then. You will face an awful lot more in the way of abuse or whatever than you claim to have recieved by Either way, and even in that situation you claim that you have "seriously considered retiring". I find this to indicate that you could not handle the sort of people you will be dealing with on a frequent, if not daily basis. This reply to Seresin is also very concering, and fails to allay the concerns brought up in the previous diff. I also find this to be of particular concern — it illustrates that among other things, the candidate does not understand the nature and actions that pertain to canvassing, and also that (it appears) only believes that support !voters should be allowed to comment on opposes, and not the other way around. This is completely against the nature of RfA being a discussion (whether it is or not is irrelevant, it should be, and this goes against that ideal). As for the comment that "Download doesn't plan on working in AFD yet", adminship does not come in parts, it comes as one complete package. Once you have it you can (and I'm not saying that you will) disregard absolutely anything that has been said here, and work at whichever administrative areas that you wish to work at. This, of course, includes AfD, and whilst I am willing to believe that if the candidate says that they will not work at AfD until they are ready that they will not work there until they believe that they are ready, the very nature of this request for adminship gives me a slight concern about that judgment, and I'd like for Download to be reassessed at that point. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor also brings some concern, as it seems to indicate that Download does not, at this point in time, understand core policies pertaining to copyright violations (and what one is, it would appear) and notability. I would also like to know what makes you feel more 'ready for adminship' now than a month ago, when you told GT5162 that you wanted to perform more non-admin work and that you wanted to gain more experience prior to going through the RfA process. In summary, I am usually willing to support good-faith editors (which Download undeniably is) outright, but simply cannot support this particular request for adminship due to the numerous concerning issues brought to light during it. Best of luck at any future requests, assuming that you allay the concerns brought up during this request (and ones which may crop up at a later point in time), I look forward to supporting your next request for adminship, assuming that you will wish to run for adminship again. — neuro^(talk) 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose, user is "way too addicted to Wikipedia". Nakon 06:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Just far, far too many problems. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. Download does not have a good enough understanding of deletion policy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose. It's quite apparent to me this candidate is not yet ready.

    As an aside: RFAs like this irritate me, because they highlight the fundamental issues with our current RFA process. I don't feel I can support someone unless I can see evidence of very high standards of conduct, because admins have tenure. Many editors feel as I do. Therefore RFA is very difficult to pass. But the fact that RFA is so hard to pass, then justifies the fact that admins have tenure. The whole thing's a horrible vicious circle.

    If it were easier to remove adminship, I'd vote "support" more often (as would many others), and we'd actually have more admins (and more active ones).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34. Oppose. Unfortunately, the candidate doesn't seem to quite grasp some of out policies, including the concern of original research. There are times to ignore all rules, but this just isn't the case. — Σxplicit 00:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose We have WP:NOR and WP:V for a reason. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose From what I have seen of the user they just don't seem to understand core issues like copyright. -Djsasso (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong oppose His comments here show an unacceptable lack of maturity and clue. Yintaɳ  22:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. No, sorry, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing to strong oppose per his answer to the question in which he says "I was aware that he was following my edits and trying to cause trouble with me..." That is a remarkable assumption of bad faith that I would not expect from a potential administrator. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39. Oppose per lack of understanding of copyright issues shown at the "Seven Ways" AFD. This user does not yet have the breadth of experience needed. I42 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This was very odd, and a bit inappropriate. Neutral for now, though this is only a temporary position. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Martin's oppose furthers my position. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral for now thanks to the userspace thing; I can be swayed either way, really. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC) move to oppose. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I haven't made up my mind yet. Normally I'll default support, but there are a few diffs and concerns I've seen that make me pause and think. I'll wait until my question is answered before deciding. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Moving to weak oppose, sorry. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Userspaces are not toxic. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well no, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral - Good user, both friendly and a good person to collaborate with. User knows what they are doing, but I'm not sure whether they are ready to take on the responsibilities just yet. — neuro^(talk) 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to oppose. — neuro^(talk) 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral No terribly bad signs but the answers to questions 6 and 10 worry me. Looie496 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Seems like a helpful and productive user (Edits to spaces outside mainspace don't bother me). I worry at the responses to the questions, though. Q4 doesn't seem off when you consider that Download may not have been referring to the very specific trial we are conducting but instead referring to the idea of flagged revisions in general. Q6 is the editor's opinion on a policy, so I am hesitant to declare it "wrong". I will say that it appears to be coming from a troubling set of assumptions. I think you need to spend some time looking over core admin and content policies. Feel free to ask for help! Protonk (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral, a good user who has made many useful contributions, and I believe that they wouldn't deliberately misuse the tools, but the AFD discussed in Tavix' oppose worries me a little. An admin should be able to spot and deal with a copyvio appropriately. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
6. Neutral; arguments for support and opposition leave me in the middle on this user's RfA. One (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mostly OK, but nominating an article for AFD and !voting to keep it is a bit muddled. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. I think you just need a bit more time on Wikipedia to get more experience and to reach the height of your maturity. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think you have the potential to persuade me to support in the future, but not at this time - I'd like to see how you will address the feedback you've been given here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2009 (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.