Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 2

R

Voice your opinion (talk page) (21/12/5); Scheduled to end 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

R (talk · contribs) - Once again I am nominating User:R (formerly TeckWiz) for administrator status. RfA regulars may recall that I previously nominated this candidate in April. At that time, I wrote:

I am nominating TeckWiz for administrator status. TeckWiz has been editing for some 15 months with contributions across a variety of namespaces. In addition to article contributions, TeckWiz contributes to vandalism fighting and regularly reports vandals to AIV after correctly escalating through the various warning templates. He has also been a regular participant in addressing alleged username-policy violations reported to WP:RFC/N, and in AfD discussions. He has also been one of the most active adopters/mentors in the adopt-a-user program, reflecting his commitment to welcoming new members to the Wikipedia community and answering their questions about our sometimes complex methods and processes. On the "teck" side, TeckWiz is the operator of TeckWizBot, a bot account currently approved and being used to "subst" user warning templates using AWB. This user is unabashedly enthusiastic about Wikipedia and his place in it, and I am confident that he would use the administrator tools prudently and exercise good judgment about where he can most capably serve the project as an admin. His two prior RfAs were unsuccessful with opposes based primarily on his then lesser level of experience. Three months and several thousand edits later, I submit his name for the community's renewed consideration and am pleased to record my support. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 10 April 2007

Although this prior nomination was passing at one point by a margin of about 25/0/0, ultimately consensus to promote was not achieved either in TeckWiz/R's April nomination or in a subsequent nomination in early July, in which Ryan Postlethwaite was the nominator and I submitted a co-nom. Significantly, each of these nominations came reasonably close to being approved by the community, with ultimate support margins of approximately 67% and 70% respectively. While editors are urged to review the complete contents of all of R's prior RfAs and reach their own conclusions, I believe a fair summary would be that support commenters believed that R had a long record of contributions including extensive vandal-fighting and attention to username issues and bot work, among other matters, and could be trusted to use the tools effectively and not to misuse them. Opposers asserted, among other things, that the candidate has a relatively limited record of mainspace contributions, which is true enough, and also made some criticisms that I consider less substantive, such as questioning a single disputed AfD nomination that R later withdrew.

With R's having failed in several prior RfA attempts—albeit with considerable support from experienced editors and by relatively narrow margins—prudence might counsel that he postpone his next RfA for a number of months and increase his contributions in areas, principally mainspace, that his prior opposers accused him of neglecting. I believe that many of R's wiki-friends have urged this course upon him, and frankly I am one of them. R has continued some anti-vandal work since July, and has also uploaded a number of free images from photographs he took while on vacation over the summer, and has operated a bot for newsletter deliveries among other tasks, but it is obvious that R has not taken the advice of many opposers by expanding his contributions into mainspace.

Of course, before writing this nomination, I pointedly asked R why he has not responded directly to the prior RfA results by increasing his experience in mainspace, primarily article-writing. The essence of his response was simply that article-writing is not the area in which he believes he can best and most usefully contribute to the project at this stage of his editing career or of his life. Not intending to be a writer after his RfA closes if it is successful, he is unwilling to try to pass an RfA by pretending to be a contributor of a type that he is not and does not imminently aspire to be. Nor does he believe that further delaying this RfA, for the sake of heeding requests that he wait longer next time, will be useful, because the nature of his commitment to the project, his level of experience, and his qualifications or lack thereof for adminship are not going to materially change in the next month or two or three. This eagerness for adminship reflects, in my view, determination to serve the project as best he can, without regard to what the best strategy for passing an RfA might be.

In a perfect world, all of our administrators would contribute brilliant prose in addition to their XfD and AIV and ANI and other work; but the fact is that we have dozens if not hundreds of admins whose contributions are primarily or exclusively in other areas than writing. Some of these before their RfAs had similar editing records to R's, although I will now and hereafter mention no names. Wikipedia has chronic admin backlogs in many areas. We need administrators who can perform all the different sorts of administrator tasks that may arise from time to time; and if an admin wants, as R does, to specialize in dealing with vandalism and username issues, that leaves all the more time for other admins who wish to deal with other types of matters.

I fear that R's RfAs have by now become a symbol of opposition to promoting candidates who do not have major contributions in the mainspace, because the issue has been raised with respect to him on multiple occasions and sticks in people's minds when his name is raised—even though other candidates with comparable records have been promoted without incident and are doing satisfactory jobs as admins. I know that R feels that this is a bit unfair to him, and it is difficult for me to conclude that he is altogether wrong.

I take the consensus of the community as expressed on the prior RfAs seriously, and I have carefully reviewed the reasons that various editors gave for both supporting and opposing his nominations. Having done so, and with due respect to all concerned, I am left with the definite and firm impression that this candidate is qualified for adminship and will use administrator tools exclusively to benefit the project. I therefore submit his name for the community's renewed consideration. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Nihiltres

(Note: I concur with Newyorkbrad's excellent nomination - omissions in my nomination attempt to avoid redundancy.)

Adminship is a privilege we Wikipedians elect for those among our community who demonstrate a clear understanding of our norms, a trust to follow and, if need be, enforce them, and a history of helping with the project that is Wikipedia. It seems to me that R has these qualities: as a well-known member of the community, he continually lives up to the model we like to set and demonstrates his commitment to our goals. Having been here for over a year and a half, he has consistently shown that he can act in the interest of our community, whether reverting vandalism, operating a bot, participating in AfD, TfD, UAA WP:CHU/U, being available on IRC, et cetera. Besides the point of participation, I find R to be an approachable user, whom as a newbie I might be able to ask for help. These seem to me to be qualities that are generally found in our administrators and, as such, it seems to me that R should be one. Whether it would be through blocking vandals and bad usernames, rolling back vandalism faster, deleting pages as needed, or other classic examples of admin actions, it seems to me that R would be a prime candidate for the mop. Let's allow him to live up to the potential he has as an active Wikipedian. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Riana

Why were people taking part in this RfA before it was transcluded and all the nominations were up?

It is an honest pleasure to be given the chance to co-nominate R for adminship. I will waste little time discussing R's work - it is well-known and appreciated by many of us, especially those are regulars at RfA ;) Suffice to say that in every area he decides to put his mind to, he exhibits maturity, competence, civility, humour and dedication. Instead, I will use the space given to me to attempt to help satisfy concerns which have come up in previous requests, and which may pop up again.

• Mainspace editing: The big one. R does not write articles - R does not wish to write articles. This does not make R a poor user. In many, many other ways, R has shown his dedication to the encyclopedia, willing to clean up for those who do write articles, trying to prevent harm to said articles. R is a better maintenance man than an architect, but the latter cannot be relied upon to fix the air conditioning :) Many admins - myself included - do not engage in article writing, preferring to work on the smaller details. This does not make us worse users than the article writers, merely different.
• Maturity: I have never been given any reason to believe R is not just as mature and cogent as the next person. Small issues from months back should not be looked at - rather, evaluate the improvement since then, and which will continue to occur. Issues like WP:SLG and similar were outside R's control - he was away from Wikipedia at the time when the trouble here started, so I'll be a bit miffed if I see any opposes based on that :)
• Here we go, another TeckWiz/R RfA: Basically, the guy does administrative task already. He's doing all he can do without the actual buttons. He's considering retiring if he can't do what he knows he can do competently, but isn't being given the chance to do. Please try to judge this request on its own merit. This is not a person overeager for the tools - this is a person who faces a dead-end, as far as Wikipedia goes, because he isn't being given more of a chance to improve the project. I'm not asking you to support him because of that, though. I'm asking you to support because we have nothing to lose by supporting him, a great deal to gain by giving him the bit, and a fantastic editor to lose if we don't.

Will R be fighting the good fight for BLP? Probably not. Fending off hordes of nationalists? Doubt it. Mediating difficult content disputes? Nah. Patrolling the project for the run of the mill vandalism, the grotty usernames, the garden variety trolls, the various morons who walk through our doors daily? Yes, yes, yes, and he can do so competently. His work will make life easier for you, the article writer; for the admin who desperately wants to take UAA off her watchlist but can't because it gets backlogged (no names here :) ); for anyone who despises the chores that someone has to do, and often end up performed too hastily by admins who have other things on the mind. What many consider chores, R knows to be a vital part of maintaining our encyclopedia, and would be honoured to perform them. I see no valid reason not to support this request. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the wonderful nomination statements. I accept. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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 do recent changes patroller and report to AIV. Instead of reporting after a vandal violates a final warning, or does an extreme type of vandalism, I will block the user myself. I will also help out at AIV by checking each user’s contributions and blocking if necessary using a duration determined by whether the vandal is an IP or user, if they have previous blocks, and how bad the vandalism was (personal attacks, page blanking, etc). Another place I also plan to spend a lot of time at is UAA, a place where users report blatantly inappropriate usernames to be blocked. Not many admins currently help out, and sometimes there are names sitting there for over two hours. I’m very knowledgeable in the username policy, and will determine if the names there are violations of that policy or not. Upon blocking, I will disable autoblock and put {{UsernameBlocked}} as the description, so the user finds out why he was blocked, and is allowed to create an account. Alternatively, I can use {{UsernameHardBlocked}} and leave autoblock if the username is obviously in bad faith (ie. [editor] is a [adjective to attack that editor]). Since they’re related, I’d also help out at RFCN. Another thing I plan to help with is closing xFD’s or relisting them to gain a better consensus if not enough people have participated. I mainly plan to help at AFD and TFD, which I’m most familiar with. I also plan to help with speedy deletion, which sometimes has major backlogs. Before going through CSD, I would probably check ASD first, since that is more harmful to the project, its members, or other people/things the page attacks. I also occasionally patrol new pages, though users often beat me to tagging the pages. I’d probably look through new pages and speedy delete some that haven’t been tagged, or have been tagged and are waiting to be deleted. I’ll occasionally handle requests for page protections and do protections for other things (i.e. new user warnings which are high-risk). Besides what I've said above, I'd be happy to help out with any other administrative tasks editors request I do.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia include updating information on currently airing television shows (such as The Amazing Race and Survivor (TV series)). I’ve created some of the Amazing Race and Survivor individual season articles, where I source the official application form, since that’s usually the only thing available. I also think some of my best contributions are vandal fighting, because though it may be easy and quick, people seeing vandalized versions of Wikipedia may get the wrong impression (which is one of the reasons that leads many schools and teachers to ban Wikipedia as a reliable source). Also, vandalized versions may shows up in Google and other search engines (I remember a few months ago, a Google crawler had crawled Wikipedia’s George Washington article when it was vandalized, and when someone searched “George Washington on Google, it came up with a summary which defamed him and included a profanity.) That doesn’t look good for Wikipedia. Probably my best contributions to the Wikipedia space are at WikiProject User Warnings and WP:UTM. All those nice, new, standardized user warnings (such as {{uw-vand1}}) are thanks to participants of WP:UW, including me. Even now, when the main templates are done, we still discuss additions and changes at WT:UW and WT:UTM. While on trips, I sometimes take pictures for myself that I upload to Wikipedia if they're relevant. An example is the Washington Monument, which I took on a camp trip this past summer.

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 never been in any major arguments, such as those that would lead to an RFC. I’ve had a few (probably under 5) issues that were on WP:ANI. I think I started one of those. I try to stay away from disputes as much as possible, and prefer to solve them on a talk page, and not by edit-warring. A major problem that me and other users faced was a trolling user at RFCN. He would constantly troll, and his talk page had 25 sections about his trolling. He was eventually indef-blocked, after he received a shorter block for the same reason. Minor problems that I can think of are when a user was using inappropriate edit summaries to egg on another user, and when I asked a user to change his signature because it had an external link in it, and he refused, though I showed him the policy saying it wasn't allowed. As a sysop I would deal with users on their talk page (or mine), and if needed, would bring the conflict to the attention of other admins at ANI if needed or requested. (Yes, this is basically the same answer as my last RFA. The reason being I’m not really controversial and I don’t get into arguments :])

Optional question from [[Animum | talk]]

4. Since someone will inevitably ask it, I'll get this out of the way. Do you think you have satisfied the concerns of your prior opposers? Why, if so?

A: As far as article writing is concerned it is true I haven't written a great deal more. However, I have spent a lot more time in working on the behind the scenes stuff, such as recent changes patrol. I don't like writing, which is why I don't do much article writing on Wikipedia. Therefore I spend my time helping out in other ways. Also, the main thing I plan at helping at, blocking at AIV, UAA, and RFCN, has nothing to do with article writing whatsoever.

Optional question from HiDrNick

5. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not? ➪HiDrNick! 05:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes I'd be happy to add myself to the category. I see no reason why not. If for some reason I'm not using my administrative powers right, I should lose them. I'd probably say if 5 or more established users requested it, I would be happy to resubmit myself for RFA.

Optional question from Nick

6. How would you react should this RfA fail. You have, I believe, threatened to leave should this RfA fail, is that a threat you would follow through, if not, why not ?

A: If this RfA doesn't pass, I will be disappointed. I wouldn't retire, but I would be frustrated at not being allowed to contribute to my full capabilities.

Optional question from CO₂

7. Could you please explain your influx of edits leading up to this RfA?

A. Yes I can. For the past few months, I've busy in real life, away on camp trips, and just bored with Wikipedia itself. A few days ago I went to my toolbox, and saw the button "Filter recent changes." I remembered installing Lupin's tool a long time ago, but it never used to work. I tried it, and it worked, and made vandal fighting easier and quicker. So, for the past few days, I've been using it, and actually enjoying Wikipedia again.

Optional questions from Mr.Z-man

You say you would help at CAT:CSD and WP:AFD, but I don't see a lot of experience with these in your deleted edits or wikispace contributions, so I have a few questions related to deletion. You don't need a long answer, but please give some insight into your reasoning. (Answer each as if you were an admin) Mr.Z-man 02:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

8a. An editor has tagged an article for speedy deletion as db-nonsense (G1) but the article does not meet the Wikipedia policy definition of nonsense and fails none of the other speedy deletion criteria. The article looks to be absolute crap (but not incoherent to be nonsense) and the author has put a {{hangon}} on it, but not provided a reason on the talk page within 20 minutes of contesting the deletion. What do you do?

A.

8b. The full time for an AFD discussion has elapsed and it is ready to be closed. There are 6 comments in favor of deletion and 5 comments in favor of keeping. All of the comments are perfectly valid but the article is a WP:BLP violation. What do you do?

A.

8c. Same situation as 8b, except there are 3 comments to delete and 7 to keep. The article is still a WP:BLP violation. What do you do?

A.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R

• Links for R: R (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/R before commenting.

Discussion

• I hope no one makes a comment about "R2." —[[Animum | talk]] 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Can an admin give us an idea what the contents of the deleted pages were? * Aillema 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • SLG was an exclusive cabal of users with single-letter or number names. Very cabalistic in nature. Maxim_(talk)
  • "SLG" was a playful page for those users whose username is one letter long. It unexpectedly became controversial while R was on a trip for a few days and was put up for MfD, and when he got home and saw the issue, he immediately consented to deletion. The "rant" page consisted of R's expressing disappointment with the functioning of the RfA process, and echoes concerns that various users routinely express on WT:RfA every month. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict x2) SLG (Single Letter Group) was a fun page for persons users with a single-letter name, it was funny at first but then they became cabalistic (removed any edits by people with more than one letter in their username from the history so "the history looked funny", got their own IRC channel, etc) and an MFD was opened. Melsaran (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Rant page also contained elements of how R felt that he knew more about using the tools that some/many of the admins themselves. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of the tools, true. His experience with vandalism and username issues is substantial. Not the most politic page, of course, which is why he quickly agreed to speedy it. Newyorkbrad 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Notice to people intending to comment here: I think that there are some oppose reasons that should be avoided in this discussion, and I justify each:
  1. Lack of article writing - I find article writing to be a skill only auxiliary to the admin work. As long as he doesn't using the tools to arbitrarily force discussions (there is no indication he would do any such thing), there's no reason that he can't be trusted with the tools. He also has indicated the area in which he would use the tools, with regard to his strengths. As long as giving him the tools is beneficial to the encyclopedia, we should give him the tools, and I would like people to comment based on legitimate concerns rather than an arbitrary ideal that few admins really reach, including myself. In fact, if you count text contributions by byte, it is highly likely that I have removed more text from the encyclopedia than what I have ever added, with over 4500 deletes since my RfA in May. My article writing has suffered, since the sources I need for the next article I will write are stuck in limbo. Yet I doubt there would be some who would criticize me for this: My actions have aided the encyclopedia and helped keep down critical backlog. We should treat R the same way: if his being given the mop would aid the project, there is no reason we shouldn't give it to him.
  2. "IRC concerns" - Even the best of editors are sometimes off-topic, occasionally uncivil, or immature on IRC. It seems to me that problems in chat should not be used against R on-wiki, since IRC behaviour does not necessarily transfer to on-wiki behaviour. Please provide diffs when making "maturity" complaints - if it's off-wiki, it's probably not worth talking about.
  3. SLG, EFD pages - R intended the SLG as a joke, one small page where the history would look funny and people could be associated by a pattern. Would you question Radiant!'s admin classification page as immature? I don't think the SLG should be an issue here: R created it as an amusing community facet, and then requested it be deleted once people thought there was something wrong with it. He did not cabal around it, so let's not accuse him of any problems in the group. This is exemplified by when the SLG was MfD'd: while R was away. Further, EfD is also a joke, parodying the culture we as Wikipedians have built around deleting content, since we take it so seriously. If you don't like the jokes, would you oppose because you think the joke was in bad taste?
  4. "Desperate to be an admin" - Can any of you reasonably justify why this is a bad thing? I wanted to be an admin for a long time, and R has had a history of being opposed in RfAs for reasons that he cannot fix or which are trivial. A touch of cynicism is warranted, with many of his concerns being echoed in the general consensus that RfA could use an eventual reform if we could find a better way of doing it that people could agree on. Further, I must note that R's activity would be enhanced by the tool: many areas in which he works would be benefitted if he could apply the correct administrative action rather than merely suggesting it - that he wants the tools is not a bad thing.

I'm sick of people making R's RfA's prime examples of problems in the process where valuable users are denied the potential to expand their role, and I hope that YOU read and consider this before !voting. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But then what grounds can we oppose on? But seriously, lack of article writing can be a problem. It creates a disconnect between admins and editors that can lead to friction and bad decisions. It's important for admins to understand how articles grow, how edit wars start, how they are likely to be resolved. That being said R does have some experience with article writing, but that's still a valid concern. Any way you want to look at it, the main thing that has people doubting R's candidacy is his maturity and that's about as good a reason to oppose an RfA as you will find. Some see this on IRC: I'm not on IRC so I don't know but that's certainly consistent with what I've seen from R and it's definitely fair game to bring it up. The same goes for the desperation to be an admin. Has there ever been a time where R wasn't either in the midst of an editor review or an RfA? You can take that as a sign of willingness to improve but I see it as a yearning for recognition. The argument is often made that we have had very successful teenage admins and that some adult admins behave like 13-year olds. Both of these things are true, but that does not mean that we want admins that behave like 13-year olds. Chances are that a 13-year old will behave like a 13-year old and that would include displaying immaturity on IRC, actively seeking recognition from peers and responsibilities, sulking when that doesn't work, being unable to recognize that 19th century cricket players can be a valuable encyclopedia topic, being unable to communicate effectively with people criticizing him, giving answers on RfA that "offer an almost anal level of detail; overstressing the need to show us how you know the minutiae of the processes, but lack the larger vision of creating encyclopaedic content" (as Steve nicely put it in the last RfA). Pascal.Tesson 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson, your initial statement is exactly the point I am making - almost all the arguments for opposing seem inherently flawed. If you think that there are good reasons to oppose, then mention those! :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got me confused. I think the reason(s) I just gave are pretty good. If you think that a lack of maturity is not a sound reason to oppose, we'll have to agree to disagree but I'm pointing out that this is essentially what other opposers are saying (and so are two of the supporters and three of the neutrals). They use as examples his behavior on IRC, his behavior with regards to RfA, with regards to SLG or his refusal to write substantial content. In the end though, they are all saying: I'm not comfortable with his maturity as a Wikipedia editor. Pascal.Tesson 00:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nihiltres, you must be joking! Wouldn't it be nice if each RFA candidate could make a list of arguments that opposers should not be allowed to consider? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm making a general statement that I think that a lot of these reasons aren't great reasons to not give him the mop, not that these reasons are necessarily to be completely avoided. While I strongly support his becoming an admin, I invite well-reasoned opposes rather than opposes which take facts out of context, especially the SLG issue. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I think that my reason, that he will have a temper tantrum one day and abuse the tools, is completely proper in this context and is exactly the issue that we should be addressing, not attempting to dodge. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the opposes on this page are pretty disappointing. I thought adminship was no big deal, and the purpose of the RfA was to gauge the trust of the community in using the tools? Do you honestly expect that because he doesn't edit articles he'll suddenly find himself acting capriciously in article disputes? Give me a break. Avruch 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not trust that R will do a good job with the tools, yet I think I speak for most of the opposers if I say that nobody expects R to willfully abuse the tools. I am however very concerned with the potential misuse of them, potential errors in judgement and potential mishandling of interaction with difficult users. Nobody is sugesting that he'll "suddenly find himself capriciously acting in article disputes" and I'm not quite sure where you got that. What I am suggesting is that when the day comes where R faces a complex case of blocking or deletion, he won't have the kind of judgement to handle it properly and to interact with the blockee or article writer in a responsible, effective way. I'm not sure why you'd find that reasoning disappointing. Pascal.Tesson 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator, per above. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nominator, with reasons given there. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support. This user should have become an admin long ago. Article writing isn't everything. R is an experienced editor who clearly won't abuse the tools. Melsaran (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Not insane. Moreschi ^Talk 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - good luck! The Rambling Man 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Supportgood user--Phoenix 15 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, with minor provisions. R is a good editor who has my every confidence, save a few things on IRC which I will not state on-wiki as it is not the appropriate venue. However, it is my opinion that people should only contribute to the project if they enjoy it. Now, R became a near-recluse after his most recent RfA, which may allude to the fact that he does not enjoy contributing when criticized. Being able to take criticism as an administrator will be a crucial part of the job. But still, he's a solid contributor who has many positive contributions, save some of the frivolous things for which he's been previously opposed, not to forget that where a person's treasure lies, there his/her heart lies also. R's a great user and the opposers leave me with no other impression that he's like the rest of us — flawed. I have strong confidence he'll take other people's opinions into consideration as an admin, his heart's set on becoming one, so let's give him the mop! —[[Animum | talk]] 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Content writing experience is helpful to producing a well-rounded administrator but I'm not sure we need to insist on all candidates having such experience. We should make use of our volunteers based on their strengths - some people are more suited to performing maintenance and administration tasks than to writing content. That someone is a poor editor does not mean that might not be an effective admin. My interactions with R lead me to believe that he has his head screwed on correctly and I trust that he'll use the tools in areas where he has experience and avoid doing so elsewhere. I think giving R admin tools will be a net benefit to the project. WjBscribe 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Yes, another editor who has shown vast improvements over recent months. GDonato (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - He has improved tremendously. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I have to say I do have some concerns about the stuff raised in the discussion section. But overall, I believe you're a constructive editor with experience, who has vastly improved with time. You should do fine with the tools. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, per all of the above. Friendly user who would not abuse admin rights. Good luck. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
13. D_arkF_alls ^talk 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support as before, as above, and as always. Teckwiz has shown me nothing but good intent, and therefore won't abuse the tools. Prodego ^talk 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
15. I support this nomination as strongly as I supported the last one. Now it is time to write my rationale: First off, I do not know why IRC is being mentioned here; I do not know how IRC is even relevant to Wikipedia, let alone adminship. Maybe that view is because I do not use IRC anyway, but even so, even if I did, I do not factor off-Wiki events into my participation at RfA. Secondly, regarding article writing, why can we not accept R's work for what it is rather than for what we want it to be? We need technical-wise administrators as well as article-writers, and R is a user highly familiar with policy and technical-matters. If he does not feel comfortable writing-articles at the moment, then fine; let him start writing them in his own time; I see no need to force him to do it. I am sure he will start writing articles when he wants to do it, and when he does, we can expect high-quality writing. In fact, I think telling him, or any user for that matter, to write articles is ultimately counter-productive. With the subpages, I do not have a problem with any of them: SLG was meant as a joke, and R didn't think it would go the way it did, which was why he had it deleted; the fact he had it deleted shows maturity on his behalf. Rant is nothing major as far as I am concerned, he had it deleted very quickly, and looking at the deleted edits, I see nothing wrong there anyway; with EfD, it is a joke page, nothing more, which is why it is in the "Wikipedia humor" category. With R's behavior, he is good-natured, and very civil and polite all the time; I have never seen him be uncivil. As for "obsession with adminship", R of all people knows that adminship is a technical ability and not power or rank. With R's username, I see nothing wrong with it: it is a good username, short and easy to type; it does not make him immature at all, and it does not have any relevance to how he would use the tools. Finally, those last words I used in the previous sentence, "use the tools", bring me to closing of the rationale: the two most important questions on RfA: do I trust R with the tools? Yes. Do I believe R will be abusive with the tools? No. Acalamari 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Extremely weak support, leaning oppose This must be R's fifth time for the mop. The point of RFAs is to determine whether or not we can trust the editor with the tools. I do have a few issues with R first, before I around to that. My first issue is those echoed by Nick. R tends to be immature on "official" IRC wikimedian channels. I know IRC isn't officially related to Wikipedia in anyway, but this leaves room for concern over his maturity level. I also have a problem with R's lack of focus on building an encyclopedia. Looking over his last 200 edits or so, you will clearly see an influx in vandal reverts leading up to this RfA, an attempt to build up his general mainspace contributions (most appear to be in the user talk space or the user space). Article writing is not extremely important to admins (getting the tools doesn't give you some special writing powers), but I'd like to see at least some mainspace contributions, outside of your recent influx of vandal reverts. It also appears (although I maybe be wrong) to me that R views the mop as some sort of a trophy, which it is clearly not. However, above all of this, I still trust that R will not abuse the admin tools, and I'm sure if he does, ARBCOM will hit him on the head. If this RfA fails, I'd recommend you hold off on RfAs for 6 months, at least. CO₂ 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
17. I've thought long and hard about R's adminship since last time around, and I've come to the inevitable conclusion that someone in my position would come to, which is "admins don't need mainspace". R has everything else, including my support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support, with my normal disclaimer: my own RFA was vulnerable to "lack of mainspace edit" warriors, and I believe I've been an effective admin. I believe that R's collaboration with this project has been effective and further believe that he's taken some heat by becoming the public whipping boy for certain issues. He has my respect, and my support. - Philippe | Talk 03:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. I would be very disappointed not to have R join the admin ranks. Do I trust him? Yes. Do I believe that anything that he might do that is not supported by consensus can be easily repaired? Yes. R, I hope the community sets petty and small issues aside and finally makes the decision that I think you deserve.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support per my nomination statement. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:42, 24 September 2007(UTC)
21. Support A very good editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:53, 24 September 2007(UTC)
22. Strong support. Per nom. Opposing arguments are based on off-Wiki maturity concerns or the immaterial lack of content editing. You'll note that admin tools don't facilitate editing but the protection of the encyclopedia and its process, and I don't see serious concerns that this editor will disrupt either effort. As for the other concerns relating to non-article userpages, I believe they've been adequately addressed if opposers would just read up. Avruch 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support it is a shame that some people mistake good-natured playfulness for immaturity. I hope they laugh in real life and even once and a while laugh at themselves. No reason to believe that this editor will abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Seems like a good Wikipedian. King Lopez ^Contribs 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to immaturity. Please note that this is not ageism, but rather a feeling from interactions both on wiki and off wiki that this user may actually get bored or silly one day and may not actually delete the main page but would do something completely inappropriate. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Any diffs? Melsaran (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   How about some diffs from the supporters? I understand AM's feelings about this. * Aillema 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not going to start diff hunting, but I will prodive 3 pages (User:R/Single Letter Group, User:R/EFD , User:R/Rant) all of which deal with this issue. Some of them may only be accessed by those who have the ability to view deleted edits. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   EFD is still up, but a social networking mess. Maxim_(talk) 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   EFD is a play page. It has no great encyclopedic merit, but is also completely harmless. It has been participated in by quite a number of respectable administrators and users, including myself, and an MfD on it was closed as "Speedy Keep." The existence of this page strikes me as having little relevance here. Newyorkbrad 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   As the admin who performed that speedy keep, I agree that the the page causes no harm. It, by itself, would not be enough for me to oppose. The problem is that pages like that and the other 2 seem to me to be more typical of R's indicated behavior than the positive contributions that he makes. Any one of them alone is no big deal, but together they say quite a lot to me. When you put that together with his temperament as I have observed, I can not trust him with the tools. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose No, because of his whole attitude about adminship and RFAs in general. I understand it must be stressful going through 3 failed rfas, but that's no reason to have the whole "adminship sucks" attitude. He's also desperate to be an admin it seems, which I don't like the idea of. I don't believe he's mature enough for the responsibility ( and no, this is not about age, as I am a minor as well). Sorry R... * Aillema 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Absolutely not: I was concerned about the candidate's immaturity, as displayed on IRC, I'm well aware that IRC doesn't equal Wikipedia (as was pointed out by the candidate about 5 minutes after I commented here), but it does, in my view, show aspects of the candidates character that are wholly undesirable in an administrator. I note that the candidate has been repeatedly kicked from official Wikimedia IRC channels for disruptive behaviour consistent with immaturity. I also left a comment earlier, prior to the candidate's acceptance of the RfA, and I did ask he restored the comment when accepting and transcluding the RfA, I'm disappointed to see it hasn't reappeared. Nick 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Commenting only on your last sentence: A bureaucrat deleted the comments because it was posted pre-transclusion. It would have been questionable for R to have re-posted them. At best it was a borderline situation, and I don't think R can be faulted for not having copied someone else's comment into his transclusion. Newyorkbrad 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, R did contact me to explain the situation, I notice looking through the history, the comment was removed, added but commented out, then removed again. I was intending for R just to remove the markup to make the comment show again, rather than fully restoring my comment. I also have to say, I kind of agree with Riana's nomination, I do think R would do good work as an administrator, but I think there could be problems too, which is the reason I'm unable to Support, despite my great respect for all of the nominators. Nick 06:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I have no doubts that R has the best interests of the project in mind; regretfully, however, my interactions with him make me concerned that his behavior is often somewhat immature, and I am not sure he will be able to consistently apply the sound judgment required as an administrator. --krimpet⟲ 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose all you do in the mainspace is vandal revert, nothing has changed since last time. T Rex | talk 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose My observation of R has left a very sour taste in my mouth. One of the thing he has done is create User:R/EFD, something more suited for rubbish heaps like Facebook and Myspace, not an encyclopedia. He has only 500 mainspace edits since the beginning of March, and except doing some work on The Amazing Race 11, they're all reverts. And when R doesn't revert, he doesn't even do anything in the Mainspace. Albeit adminship is not all about writing, I do expect some encyclopedic writing. I feel R is too immature, and even if Melsaran wants diffs, she won't get them. You don't notice immature because of diffs; it's a pattern of general behaviour and attitude. Editors for deletion strikes me as a bit immature. I'm extremely unimpressed with User:R/Paroleoffer. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This template makes it sound like a block is punitive, and consequently a serious misunderstanding of the blocking policy. Also, R edits his userspace way too much. Also, I forgot to mention the User:R/SLG. They had its own IRC channel at a time. That's social networking, not building an encyclopedia. And User:R/Rant ain't nice. I'm not impressed by this user. Maxim_(talk) 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   How does that template make it sound like blocks are punitive? It looks like a good idea to me to use for vandals that have been blocked and say "unblock please I promise I'll never vandalise again"; you say "okay, I'll unblock, but one more vandalism edit = reblock". There's nothing punitive about that. Melsaran (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Maxim..I had nothing to with with SLG besides the main page. The exclusion of people from the IRC channel (which I didn't even know about) and the MFD was all during a period I was away on a trip. When I got home, I saw the MFD, and speedy deleted the pages. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   It was in your userspace, therefore it means you agreed with having such a page, and being part of it. That's not good. Maxim_(talk) 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes it was in my userspace. I'm saying I was unaware of the IRC channel, people not allowed into it, the MFD, and the discrimination against non single letter users until I came back from my trip. When I came back, I found the MFD, and had the page speedy'd because it had turned into even more nonsense. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm troubled by the Parole Offer template, but for different reasons to Maxim, the block on a user is solely the responsibility of the administrator in question, and the unblock is solely the responsibility of the same or another administrator. Not to sound too Cabal-ish, but editors without access to deleted contributions and suchlike shouldn't be going around offering "parole offers" to users when they may be unaware of the evidence for a block. I'm curious as to how the whole parole process would work, would R ping an admin and have them unblock, or did R assume he would be an admin. Nick 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   No, Nick, it wasn't for non-admins. It was a proposal I started and never got around to fixing. It would've been only used by admins, since they are the only ones that can actually unblock. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I've frequently seen admins, in addressing unblock requests, ask the user to propose what sort of edits they would make if unblocked, or even post the text of a specific improvement they would like to make. I hadn't seen this before, but this could have worked as an extension of that concept. Users recently blocked for vandalism are effectively "on parole" anyway, in the sense that they will be reblocked if they vandalize again more quickly than a first offender might be. Newyorkbrad 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think that template was intended to be used by non-admins. Melsaran (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose - While EFD is fun, SLG was not, and the very demand for a single letter username echos the above maturity concerns. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose My concerns of the previous RfA still stand. I don't think R has the maturity to handle admin duties. There are many signs of this: the deleted rant page, the way he reacted during and after his failed RfAs, the SLG thing, the notorious cricket AfD, the 5 RfAs and 2 editor reviews in the span of 10 months and, yes, I'll also include his age. I'm confident R won't delete the mainpage but that's not the issue here. I don't trust him to handle the inevitable interaction with problematic users in a way that benefits the project. Pascal.Tesson 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per Maxim. Dureo 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Too many issues. Having five RfAs is a real concern to me. What I have heard about the rant page and SLG are not good either. Though I don't go on IRC much, bad actions there could suggest potential bad actions here. Sorry. Captain panda 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    What, we have a rule about the maximum number of RfAs now. As far as I know, the record is 7, and that user is now one of the *most respected* and *best* admins (correct me I'm wrong). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Before this RfA, I had never even heard of five RfAs. I realize that there is no rule about the number of RfAs a user may have. What I do realize is that when a user has 5 RfAs quite close to one another. In addition the user in question has not really worked on what the opposers suggest. Perhaps R cannot write well, but can't he at least try instead of ranting on the evils of RfA voters? Even though my own RfA failed because of a lack of article writing, I realize now that this is an encylopedia. R has done good work, but his behavior and lack of willingness to improve really worries me. Captain panda 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    When you have a failed RfA, I'll bet working to appease the opposers is not the first thing you'll think about when you get wind of its failure. As for the number of RfAs, they've been as temporally apart as community practice upholds. Please rethink your rationale. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I know that when I learned that my RfA failed, I did not immediately think of what I could do to convince the opposers next time. However, now I am focusing more on this. Having a few months helps a user to consider what the oppposers have suggested. I do no see why your first sentence invalidated my point. As for your second one, there was one month between the first and second RfA, three months between the second and third one, three months between the third and fourth one, and two months between the fourth and fifth one. At best, some of those months have been the bare minimum of what the usual three month consensus. Others have only been one and two months apart. This really does suggest a bit of overeagerness for adminship. I realize that wanting to be an admin is normal. However, that is no excuse to ignore opposing comments. Captain panda 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

11. For the first time ever, I oppose R's RfA. Your participation hasn't really improved. For the 139th time, please work on the suggestions people give you. Your failure to listen to the suggestions made by established editors in your previous RfAs prevent me from being able to trust you with the tools. If this RfA is succesful, I'm sure you'll be a great admin, but I just don't think I trust you right now. Sorry. BTW, 5 RfAs in less than 1 year is 0_o --Agüeybaná 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Have you read the nom? The guy can't write - are we gonna make him write? Methinks it might be worse for the project if we do. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    I can't, either: my English sucks. Has that stopped me from creating articles and nominating hooks to appear at WP:DYK? No, it hasn't. This is a wiki; try, and we'll help. --Agüeybaná 23:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Your english sucks, big deal. I spent the first 3 years of my life in Romania, but do I use that as an excuse to write crappy prose? No, I have other excuses xD Maybe R has reasons other then crappy/good/brilliant/ChuckNorris English - maybe he just doesn't like writing. I don't like UAA reporting, you gonna make me? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    LOL. If he doesn't want write articles (or at least add content to existing ones), then I don't understand what he's doing here. --Agüeybaná 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Not everyone is great in article writing. Some are good with bots, others are good with images. CO₂ 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm a native American-English speaker, so that's not the problem :D. I just don't like writing. I write enough in English class and I hate that also. I'm here to help a good cause. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Attack! Attack the opposer! btw, what's UAA? They keep inventing acronyms in this joint! -- Y not? 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    (EC with CO, R, Y - response to Eddie) He's reverting vandalism. Would you rather edit an article that reads "John is gay xD", or that actually discusses its subject matter? R's the guy who ensures #2 takes place. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    H2O, he's not even doing that much reverting. He's made a total of 157 mainspace edits since his last RfA, but 126 of those edits came in a three day period from September 21 to September 23 (almost all were reverts). The biggest concern has always been R's lack of mainspace editing. He's always maintained that he's not great at article writing, but surely, there must be a way in which you can contribute to articles that wouldn't be so geared towards writing. How about copyediting or sourcing? Sourcing is very helpful, and it doesn't really require you to do any article writing. Tackle a category like Category:Articles lacking in-text citations, and you can surely make a number of worthy contributions to the encyclopedia without the need of serious article writing. R, if you do that, I'm sure people would support you in a future RfA. If you do choose to follow this path (and I wholeheartedly wish that you will), please wait a few months before re-requesting a RfA again. People want to see a long-term change in your editing pattern, not a short-term change. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I have no interest in attacking the opposer, or anyone else, as I value everyone's right to an opinion, but I do have a question. Agüeybaná, you state that you are sure that R would be a great administrator, and yet you cannot trust him with the tools. Perhaps I am failing to understand you correctly, but that sounds to me like a contradiction. Newyorkbrad 00:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    That's an excellent example of my suck-ish English. I meant to say that I don't doubt the fact that he's great with admin-y tasks, but his mainspace contribs make me believe that he will not be able to correctly use the tools in that area. Therefore, I do not trust him with admin tools. Hope this explains everything well. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Basically per immaturity and this notion of RfA-via-the-battering-ram method. I just don't have the stomach for it, despite my respect for the nominators. -- Y not? 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose - has spent a lot more time on EFD and SLG than articles since the last RfA. Spends more time on joking around than editing articles. Also, the obsession with adminship is particularly unpalatable and all the old things about no article edits except for basically all machine edits still hold. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Adminship is not a trophy. Neither a flying broom. It's a mop. - Mailer Diablo 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - were it not the fact that I like this particuar dude, it would be "oppose per confusing username". Миша13 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   We already have several admins with single-letter names, and a bureaucrat approved this name-change, so I think this concern is raised a bit too late in the day. Newyorkbrad 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   That doesn't change in the least the fact that single letter usernames are confusing (in fact, there's only two sysops - B and Y; with H being a former one). I might also add that 1) any more SL admins and I'll might start confusing one with another and 2) the said 'crat made a mistake (though it doesn't compare to requesting the name change in the first place). Миша13 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   RfA is for judging editors, not usernames. —[[Animum | talk]] 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   No, it's about judging the editor's (editor = human + account; account = username) ability to perform as an administrator. "Perform" covers interaction with other sysops, which in turn requires the ability (for others) do discern one editor from the other. And this particular editor's confusing username does not help with that. Миша13 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   (one make take this comment seriously if they wish, but this is only making a specific point, not to count for or against anything) I'm an admin on Commons with the exact same username as here; would that make me a bad administrator there? There may be even more confusing usernames there, as my username is veery similar to Ö. Were there any times somebody confused me with that user, and was my communication with other admins bad at all because of the username issue? —O (说 • 喝) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (GMT)

   Unfortunately for R having a gimmick username isn't likely to help his efforts in convincing people that there are no maturity concerns here. On the whole I agree with Misza that the change shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I don't know, but based on the IRC comments I've seen in a past few weeks (yes, people think IRC dosen't weigh for adminship), it makes me feel that you think that adminship is a desire rather than a tool. Also, you have the skills of an admin, which is good, but there is one slight problem, try to do some article-building (spelling/grammar checking does count in this case). You should do some article-building so you can develop the skills of dispute resolution. Well, that is my comment of the day. However, if his behavior both changes on-wiki and IRC during the course of the RfA, I might be willing to support.PrestonH 15:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
3. From all I've seen from R, I know this is a great user. However, maturity issues and the like bolstered by opposers trouble me from supporting. —O (说 • 喝) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (GMT)
4. Neutral Leaning to Support The user seems to be very active in serveral administration tasks and can only be aided by giving adminship, and I do trust him with the tools. While lack of encyclopedia writing is apparent, I don't see how this strongly contributes in either direction ot an adminship request. The user seems reasonable about putting himself up as open to recall. The only worry I have is an apparent slight immaturity that may work its way into admin responsibilities. A solid candidate, with a bit more apparent maturity would have my full support. Liempt 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning to oppose, but persuadable. As I've said ad nauseam - including on at least one of your previous RFAs - I believe admins need to have a reasonable creation/expansion/rewriting history; until you've seen for yourself just how hard it is to create valid content, particularly on controversial topics, I don't think one's in a position to empathise with or credibly debate with people who are having material they've worked hard on deleted, and I don't think your mainspace contributions are up to scratch. I do also wonder why someone who doesn't appear to have any particular interest in content wants to be an admin. While your knowledge of policy is fine - which is why I'm not opposing - I can't really support. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   The main reason I want to be an admin is to help out blocking at AIV, UAA, and RFCN. That has nothing to with content, except that users at AIV are ones destroying content. I don't need article writing to know how to appropriately block a vandal. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

6. I feel unable to support at this time. It just seems, R, that you desire adminship to a degree where it has become one of your only goals here, to a degree where you desire it so badly that it has blinded you to the true purpose on this project. The tools are no big deal, and to attempt five times in nine months to obtain some extra functions really seems to bring to light a lack of patience and good forethought. Also, your apparent ignorance of the issues brought up by your previous opposers, over the last five requests, further makes me unsure whether you should be an admin at this time, as it shows a lack of a willingness to listen and take action based on what others are saying, which is something much needed and valued among sysops. People are not opposing you for the fun of it; you can't just continue to schedule the next RFA. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
7. I'm deeply torn here between some very good arguments presented by Wikipedians I respect greatly. I'm currently trying to weigh them up and either support or oppose, combined with recent editing patterns by R, but I still can't decide whether I support or oppose this nomination. Daniel 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)