Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Betacommand - Wikipedia


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

Final (73/3/3) Ended 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Betacommand (talk · contribs) –
Co-nominated by Eagle 101

  • I nominate this user to adminship for the following reasons. He has been a valuable contributor on WP:BRFA, and is now a member of WP:BAG. He has bots that have over 37,000 edits, and runs these with minimal complaints. Also, he is a member of the WP:VP2 moderator team. He is also a moderator for WP:VPRF 1.3. As a result I feel that he has handled positions of trust well, and that he will handle adminship in the same manner. In fact on IRC, I have seeked Betacommands advice for bot related activity. This user has 0% chance of admin abuse. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated by Húsönd

  • I was very surprised to discover that Betacommand isn't an administrator yet. Trustworthy, efficient and amicable, in almost a year he and his bots have performed thousands of valued contributions to Wikipedia. I believe that his already outstanding involvement with countervandalism could be further enhanced with the admin tools.--Húsönd 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominiated by Tawker Seriously, all I can say is wow I would have SWORN betacommand had the flag. Well, thats my nom statement :o

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will use the admin power for working on csd, vandalism and I will get familiar with other admin processes and start getting involved with those including NPA notice board and other admin boards
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think my most valuable contributions to Wikipedia would be my vandal fighting and running my bot for CFD and its other tasks
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have been involved in conflicts, besides the average vandal the case that stands out the most would be the issue about the welsh categories on CFD you can see part of it here but a summary is there were a group of categories that were nominated for deletion and were subsequently deleted per WP:CFD they were then listed at WP:CFD/W where I emptied them with my bot. User:Deb left a message on my talk page that two of the cats should not be deleted. I then pointed to CSD and went ahead and emptied again. After I emptied it again they posted a vague note that I had acted improperly and that I should not have emptied the cats but did not tell me why it should not have been deleted. Deb then posted a comment to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about how it was improperly deleted. (it was posted on CSD for only four days not the normal seven). Deb never told me that, I decided to dig deeper and I found that it wasn’t properly left on CFD for the required seven days. So I dug though both my contributions and those of Deb’s and gathered as much information as I could and I then posted to WP:DRV and lobbied for un-deletion to that a proper CSD could happen.
Just to say I don't blame anyone for making a mistake, as long as they admit it when they realise. Deb 16:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've found two edits of yours that I have questions about. First, at Nanking Massacre, you reverted this edit as vandalism, and gave the anon editor a test2 template. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to show that you equated an edit that neutralized a biased sentence with vandalism. When the anon contacted you here, on your talk page (which your test2 warning invited them to do), you seem to have ignored them. A few days earlier, at Talk:Sharon Creech, you tagged a talk page for speedy deletion with a db-bio tag. Could you explain these? Thanks. Picaroon9288 03:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reguarding the Talk:Sharon Creech edit that is an error in vandalproof I do not know why it was tagged and I do not recall making an edit to that page. in responce to the Nanking Massacre edit I made an honest mistake in thinking that was vandalism. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. What was the deal here and specifically with this edit? How can you "have no clue why that edit was made"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I was using AWB for template substitutions with a simple find and replace commands. I have been using the same list for ~2 months and haven’t had a problem before or since that one edit. see [1] for the run in question. this has been the first error that i have seen and it is a weird AWB error
As a quick comment: that was an AWB error that has since been addressed (my bot was having the same issue). Alphachimp 23:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% Optional Questions from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

I believe that answers to these questions will help the participants to judge you better. In case you think that a question cannot be answered without ambiguity, please ignore the question(s) and proceed.
6. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Wikipedia? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Wikipedia administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies?
A: On Wikipedia there is a set of rules that govern our actions, they have been debated there has been a consensus reached about them, and are considered "official” and every user regardless of position should follow these, they are Policies. In contrast Guidelines are more of a suggestion for wiki etiquette, or how to do something, and are not necessary followed to the letter, or at all by some users. I on the other hand believe that both policy and guidelines are important for everyone from anon to steward to abide by. I have followed both policy and guidelines as much as is possible, and plan on continuing to do so in order to not only better Wikipedia but also help out my fellow editors and readers of Wikipedia.
7. What are your views with respect to WP:WONK? Can users be cleanly segregated into either category? Do you fit into any particular category?
Yes some users can be placed into one or the other category, that is determined by their actions, I do not think that i would fall into either, because i feel that both categoties are part of a whole that should be balanced, both policy and procedure are inportant, there is a saying eveything is good for you in moderation

Question from Rory

8. I know this is a rather old diff, but it's troubled me for a while whenever I see your bot. Why did you make a long series of edits using AWB like this, substing every userbox on a page whether it was being TfDed or not, and without the users' permission? --Rory096 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just starting to use my bot and it was still in trial, and if my memory serves me correctly I was using an improper find and replace, once that was brought to my attention I stopped immediately Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it was a bug in the code, not you purposely substing every userbox? --Rory096 00:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forget the actual userbox that needed subsuted but it was something like {{user Foo|optional code}} so i thought that i typed {{subst:user Foo but I had {{subst:user . instead. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok then. --Rory096 00:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

9. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: WP:IAR is a policy that i don’t necessary agree with but I do see its merits, as at times there are needs to do certain actions. Before the 3RR was changed if you came a cross a vandal you could only revert three times, if they had done it again I would use WP:IAR as it was needed. But at other times IAR can be destructive as it goes against all of Wikipedia (revert wars). WP:SNOW is a very useful guideline. If there is a AfD that is 30/0 for deletion three days into it, there could be a case for WP:SNOW as there is unlikely to be many editors that would disagree. Thus WP:SNOW could be used. I am not in favor of completely skipping the process but if there is a obvious end and there is a very little chance of it changing I would use WP:SNOW. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. (Editor added question) What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia? Anomo 21:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am from the United States where there is a freedom of speech, I accept that theses sites will exist as long as Wikipedia exist. I do not agree with those sites but I must except that they will be there. As with anything there will always be those who will oppose you. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Betacommand's editcount summary stats as of 07:42 October 15 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 07:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Strong Support - As co-nominator —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I beat the nominator! Jorcoga  03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You will pay for this, Captain Planet! :-) --Húsönd 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support as co-nominator.--Húsönd 03:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A future bureaucrat as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - per prior interactions with editor at WP:RFBOT --T-rex 04:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Betacommand was not an admin before.... wow... this is news to me. Snowball support -- Tawker 05:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Tawker. You must be kidding me! – Chacor 05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support - what do you mean he isn't an admin already!?! --Skenmy(t•c•n) 06:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support This person should have been one ages ago! sorry about not signing Jeffklib 08:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I don't think that the admin tools would be abused by this editor. (aeropagitica) 07:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support An excellent contributor to Wikipedia - also very surprised he wasn't Admin before! --Sagaciousuk (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support thought he was one. --Alex (Talk) 11:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. +1. Deserves the mop. MaxSem 11:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Merovingian ※ Talk 11:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Very strong support - shocked that he didn't already have it Martinp23 11:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support He does great work and I am honestly surprised he's not been using the extra buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support per above (I thought he was already an admin support :O) Hello32020 12:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support I have seen this user around Wikipedia a lot, and while having not directly interacted with them, have been impressed with their contributions and way of dealing with things. SergeantBolt (t,c) 14:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support and I'm not trying to use a cliche here - I really seriously did think he already was one. -  Mike | trick or treat  15:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support same feeling as Mike1. Rama's arrow 15:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom. Michael 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Haven't really had any interaction with this user, but I have seen him/her around Wikipedia quite frequently. I trust this user would make a fine admin. Nishkid64 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per Tawker. You're sure you're not one already? BryanG(talk) 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support - a helpful user who always seeks to lend a hand. Great at bot works and would need the admin tools. NCurse work 18:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support with no doubt.-- danntm T C 19:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Looks like he will be a good admin. NauticaShades 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom. Looks good to me. AuburnPilot 20:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support quite apt and fair... curious what diffs the (first) neutral voter may provide though. KazakhPol 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, seems like he'd make a good admin. --Rory096 00:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, good distribution of edits by namespace. Excellent work re: MySpace. —freak(talk) 01:07, Oct. 16, 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support I have nothing but good things to say about Beta. He has always presented himself to me in a very levelheaded and professional manner, specifically in matters concerning WP:VP2. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. G.He 02:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support!!Deserve the admin tools--Primate#101 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Without reservations. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. 1ne 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support per nom. Beta would make an excellent admin. AA Milne 13:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Very Strong Support Having had contact with Beta through his role with Vandal Proof I have found him to be a great resource. When I had an issue I could find him live on IRC and the issue was fixed right away. A reveiw of this page and his work show no chance of abuse of admin powers in my mind. TheRanger 14:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support—Familiar with the issues. Constructive. No indication that Betacommand is unreasonably inflexible. Unlikely to abuse the buttons... Williamborg (Bill) 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. As a fellow member of BAG, I endorse Betacommand. His contributions to the bot approvals process has no black marks. See my notes below. -- RM 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per answers to questions. Very helpful with VP2, to boot. --Coredesat 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, I don't think Betacommand would abuse the admin tools. jd || talk || 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support All run-ins I've had with this user have been positive. He helped me complete a huge task with his bot, and he was prompt at answering my questions and civil the whole time. The oppose reasons as they are now (bot malfunctions and a failure to adhere to English prescription) don't really sway me away from supporting Betacommand. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support - great user. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support does good work, bot work a plus. Adminship no big deal, unlikely to abuse it. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support good user. Some bot-related mis-haps, but since when are we expecting admins to be perfect?--Konst.able 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support He deserves to be an admin, and knows how to abuse admin tools. Daniel5127 (Talk) 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Pile on Support Normally I'd skip commenting in RfAs that are so obviously going to pass per WP:SNOW. However I guess this is testimony to how much I support his acquiring the tools... bring 'em on! Glen 09:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. --Kbdank71 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. utcursch | talk 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Does much important work, and I think it is unlikely he will irreparably damage Wikipedia. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Based on their answer to my question, it likely shows they would handle criticism of their work with a cool head. Anomo 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support Please, should there really be any doubt? He'd be a great sysop! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support  Doctor Bruno  00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support A strong asset to wikipedia, will be a great admin.--Fabio 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support on wheels Whoah, you aren't already an admin? With your edit count? Hurry up, man! :P - ¡Kribbeh!Speak!\Contribs 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Anger22 01:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Candidate has clearly demonstrated that he can be trusted, and has useful experience with bot-related matters. Although I knew he wasn't already an administrator, I think the time has come – Gurch 19:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak Support minor objections but I think he's ready — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOADLuver (talk • contribs)
  63. Support Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Ixfd64 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - no problems here. —Khoikhoi 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - How'd I miss this? --Mr. Lefty (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak support You'll surely use the tools productively; that is clear from q1 and your contributions. But Quarl's diff, as well as the ones I cited in q4, make me unable to give a full support. So be careful, and good luck. Picaroon9288 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per above. The oppose and neutral reasons mentioned below seem weak. Past problems have been few and of the type that demonstrate readiness to dust oneself off and learn. This is a fine, conscientious contributor who will use admin tools responsibly. Wryspy 20:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Low mainspace talk, but this is balanced by good userspace talk. Seems like a good editor. Irongargoyle 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: The user contributes both to helping field queries and in appropriate AfD actions. He seems to cleave to conferring and acting modestly. Geogre 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Oui....per above support votes.--Jersey Devil 01:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, I must agree with AmiDaniel. You are very nice, but you need to communicate more intelligibly. Also, please be more careful with your bot, especially being in BAG. [2] —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-16 12:40Z
    Betacommand is a valued member of BAG and I would never fault him for having an error in his bot. That's why we run bots through a trial period, since errors are to be expected (as are other non-bot human errors). The trial period ensures (among other things) that the bot operator knows how to detect and handle errors. This is of course what happened in the situation you described: An error occured, he was notified, and immediately fixed the problem. -- RM 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was happy with the quick response (though the erroneous actions were not undone), but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the constant string of complaints and objections on User talk:BetacommandBot, plus the poorly composed, low-entropy, run-on replies [3]. I hope in the future, BetacommandBot actions will be more thought-out before running automated. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-16 19:56Z
    BTW, if there are routine problems with a bot, feel free to post them on the bot approvals talk page. Having stated this though, I'll look into it and see what appropriate action needs to occur, if anything. Betacommand was added to BAG at the same time that myself and a few others were added. It was done so by an intermediate voting process and once a firm voting procedure is established there may be reconfirmation votes. At such time, you can feel free to add your thoughts as well. -- RM 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Temporary Oppose. I'm concerned about the points raised by Quarl, especially those of the User talk:BetacommandBot. There are a lot of problems mentioned about the bot and no replies. This concerns me, especially as a member of BAG (both myself and Betacommand). I consider this a temporary oppose because I am going to look into this more deeply, do some research, and hopefully betacommand will address these concerns as soon as possible. Until then, I can't support. I should say that I've looked over almost all of Betacommands contributions to bot approvals and was unable to find any problems. I will agree here that the run-on sentences, grammar, and punctuation leave something to be desired especially for an admin. -- RM 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, Betacommand does his bot replies to the complaining users' talk page. Some examples include this, and that. Also, these two might help [4] [5]. RM, I hope that helps you concerning the missing replies.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It's always nice when a little of the research is done for you. I'll check these out and see what I think. -- RM 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I have a good deal of prior experience watching this user, and thought all day before adding this opinion. Betacommand seems like an excellent user, but I've always been troubled by the communication issues. The diff provided by Quarl is alarming, and seems characteristic of Betacommand's talk contributions. Administrators represent Wikipedia through their communication. Your article talk contributions and Wikipedia talk contributions seem to indicate a fairly low level of English comprehension. I don't believe your communication will properly represent enWiki, particularly in response to user inquiries. Remember, you are going to have to justify your actions, and clarify policy to other users. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. I can't find many article space contributions other than vandalism reverts and massive AWB sweeps. I'm not saying that you aren't a great vandal fighter, but there's more to this encyclopedia. As for being a member of the B/AG, you contributed to a brief, barely publicized election and won with 5 votes in favor. I'm not sure that's such a big deal, although I'm sure others would disagree. Alphachimp 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted for the record that alphachimp barely failed to pass in the same election and that I myself passed in the same election. As I stated above, the election was intended to be a somewhat temporary measure. I don't know if this affects the discussion, but I thought people might care to know in the interest of full disclosure. -- RM 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment was not intended as an attack on the voting procedure, it was simply of a note of its obvious insignifcance. Let's confine our comments to the candidate in question, rather than the voters. Alphachimp 23:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I apologize for implying anything inappropriate about you. Please disregard my comment. I think we merely misunderstand one another. I do not want anyone to disregard Alphachimp's opinion as I believe his opinion has great merit and he is a valuable contributor. By "barely", I meant that if the situation were to arise again the result may have been rightly the opposite result. I was not implying some defect on Alphachimp, but quite to the contrary. Back to the candidate in question: I think Alphachimp's point here is valid in that being a member of BAG should not grant with it any such extra set of inherent "points" towards this RfA, due to it being an "interim election". -- RM 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, WP:BAG is not a source of "points". I mentioned it on my nomination as a way of showing a task that Betacommand has done well in my point of view. I understand it is temporary, and perhaps I should have noted that in my nomination, but a job well done is a job well done. Betacommand has handled the Bot Approvals group posting responsibly and with no problems. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, I agree. I have no issues whatsoever with the work Betacommand has done for B/AG. Alphachimp 03:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OpposeI am opposed to the deletionist philosophy. If that's what I wanted, I can just buy Microsoft encarta.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tnfiddler (talk • contribs) .

Neutral

  1. Sorry, Betacommand, but I'm afraid I cannot support this RfA. Throughout my many interactions with this user, I've found him to be a nice, levelheaded guy, but at the same time I'm consistently bothered by his inability to think things through before acting and even moreso by his inability to adequately explain himself, his intentions, and his actions. His responses to questions are always overly brief and dismissive, which indicates to me either an inability or an unwillingness to discuss and clarify, which is, in my opinion, quite a shortcoming in a prospective administrator. Although there seem to be many reasons to hand this excellent contributor the mop, and although adminship truly is not a big deal, I just really cannot bring myself to support at this time. I hope to be able to support in the future, but I currently do not see evidence of the interpersonal skill necessary of an administrator. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ami, could you point me to some difs and examples showing the problems you mentioned above? Thanks.--Andeh 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I would also like to see some diffs, as I'm withholding my vote based on this comment. Themindset 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral based on my criteria. I find it amazing that a user can rack up over 7000 edits and yet has less than 50 mainspace talk edits - seems to be evidence of very little article building experience. I am also concerned about the communication problems referred to by AmiDaniel, but am waiting for diffs to form an opinion on that point. Themindset 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. After considerable thought into the matter, I've removed my opposition on the grounds that additional information has shown that this user has adequately dealt with bot problems. Still, I agree with some of the concerns mentioned, such as those by AmiDaniel. At this time, I can't support, although I'd like to. -- RM 21:19, 18 October 2006 (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.