Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armbrust

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

Armbrust

Final (16/21/13) Withdrawn by candidate. Procedurally closed by Courcelles at 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Armbrust (talk · contribs) – I have worked with this user for over a year now, mainly on tennis related articles. Furthermore, I have monitored this user’s work in the pages for deletion category and saw he has Admin experience already, and would use the features of this wisely, which would free up other Administrators to do other categories of admin work.BLUE_DOG^TN 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept your nomination. I withdraw my nomination. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: At the beginning I would mainly work on the deletion process of articles (AfD and speedy deletion), because I have the most experience in this area. I plan to participate later in DRV and other XfD areas too.

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

A: I have created more than 200 articles on Wikipedia and contributed to three articles to reach GA status. Have been participated in the AfD process, where I have recently performed non-admin closures (mainly procedural by nature) and relisting of discussions. I am a member of the Birthday and Welcoming comitee, which advocate Wikilove.

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 try to solve problems by discussion. It is true, that discussions are mostly not initiated by me. I try to be as polite as possible in every discussion, assume good faith. Interacting with other can editors can cause stress, because editors have other opinion about things, which is, I think, a good thing. If I feel stressed about something, than I don't make edits in these area. I cool down, and step over it. Being an admin, I think, will not change this.

Additional optional question from Kraftlos

4. I see a lot of minor edits. Are there articles where have you done substantial content work and if so which articles?

A: I have created many article, mainly related to snooker tournaments and players. My first articles were created in one edit. (Like: 2007 Premier League Snooker, 2006 Premier League Snooker) I have created the failing World Snooker Championship yearly article until 1957. Many of my edits are minor, because I regularly add results and breaks to snooker tournament articles. I have recently made this major edits: [1], [2].

5. In your own words, what is the purpose of WP:N?

A: WP:N describes what criteria a topic must fulfil to be worthy for inclusion in the Wikipedia and what can be done, if an existing article fails these criteria.

Additional question from Protector of Wiki

6. If you were a mod, how would you deal with this type of comment (block, warn, stand by passively, etc.) from a mod? Would your opinion change if this comment were made by a "commoner"?

A: This comment can be interpreted as WP:personal attack. I would use the appropriate user warning template (Uw-npax). If the user reaches the final warning level and does not change his behaviour, then I would block him. I think, that admins are just like the other users with the exception, that admins have access to extra tools, which aid them by maintenance. Thus I would follow the same steps.

7. If you were a mod, how would you deal with this (block, warn, stand by passively, etc.) from a "commoner"? Would your opinion change if this were made by a mod?

A: If I interpret it, right this comment is an answer of the comment in the previous question. Personal attacks are unacceptable, even it is a reply to an another personal attack, thus the answer is the same as in question 6: using the appropriate warning template and blocking after reaching the final warning level and is no change in behaviour. The fact that this were an admin, wouldn't change the reaction.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

8. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A:

Additional optional question from Panyd

9. Could you please give examples of some XfD arguments you have made that you are particularly proud of, or which you feel demonstrate your abilities in that area?

Some examples:

1. AfD: Delete I could only find this entry at Urban Dictionary. It looks like, it is not notable enogh to be included on Wikipedia.
2. Afd: Speedy delete as a hoax. There are no sources about this person. Google-search results are posts by this person.
3. AfD: Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Every source is within one week of the incident. It may be newsworthy, but not notable.

Additional optional question from Seth Kellerman

10a. Do you have any keep XfD arguments you have made that you are particularly proud of, or which you feel demonstrate your abilities in that area?

A:

10b. Have you ever undertaken any efforts to help an article nominated for deletion satisfy any of the criteria that would result in it being kept?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Comment (shifted to talk page; Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message})
  • Well, it's not exactly a helpful comment Wifione. It might be useful if you posted it to the candidates talk, but frankly here it's pretty much poisoning the well. The talk page of this RFA (or indeed nowhere) would be better suited to off-hand personal and unevidenced opinions I would think.Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • My apologies. I did not actually think that RfA voters would base their votes on one comment of mine and not on the very comprehensive discussions below, both in the support and in the oppose column. But am shifting my comment immediately post seeing your request. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Support User has been around since 2008 and has over 47000 edits and has created over 200 articles and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Has been a great contributor to the encyclopedia, and knows a lot of policies. I agree with POTW & BlueDog to give Armbrust the mop. Minimac (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Moral support. A sensible, hard-working and ambitious editor that displays a passion for being a Wikipedian. His activities on behalf of the welcoming and birthday committees provides motivation and make this a better place to work. Looking like it's not going to happen this time hence the 'moral' support, but I see a lot of potential in this user and if he takes into consideration the issues raised in this RfA I have no doubt his next one will pass. -- œ^™ 21:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Moral support - bit more moral support. User is clearly experienced and there would be some areas of Administration that I am sure he could and would be an asset. Recently a user was given the mop with the comment that he should go to admin school and get a mentor or two. Perhaps this user has some minor issues but if he took his time I am sure he would not make the wheels drop off. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - The user is doing a great job and has demonstrated that he/she knows and understands the policy. Looking through contributions I don't see anything wrong. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Lots of experience, don't see any major issues. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Support I can't honestly see a reason to make me believe he would destroy the wiki with the tools.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - He's done a good job, I'd say we should give him a chance. He might have had some disruptive edits but that does not outweigh the good he's done and the work he has effortlessly contributed. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:06pm • 02:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Support I see no major issues. Good luck :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - Problems have indeed been listed in the oppose section, but I trust that he will not act in any way to disrupt Wikipedia with the tools. Derild4921☼ 02:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
12. Support He meets all my admin criteria. I was a bit nervous about the stuff being brought up in the oppose section, but with this many edits you're bound to make a few mistakes. He seems to be committed to the goals of the project and has plenty of experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - No red flags for me. Editing wikipedia is a fuzzy process in all cases (and I think SHOULD be a fuzzy process). Anyway, generally clean record, heavy contributor, understands a chunk o' stuff, and all indications are that this editor is capable of refining his understanding of wikipedia adminship. I think I'm a bit old school in thinking that granting admin status shouldn't be that big of a deal. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
14. Support: A dedicated and prolific contributor. I am changing to support because the concerns raised represent a very small % of this candidate's large number of edits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Support some issues in opposition raise a few eyebrows, but the editor is progressing and experienced. Hope after a few months that Armbrsut decides to give another go. Moral here Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Support -- wiooiw (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry. I think an essential quality of being an admin is judiciousness in decision-making and the ability to explain a decision to people disappointed by it. Those qualities are particularly important in deletions. Looking through your contributions (and I have had a good look) I see a lot of very quick AfD !votes, often within one minute of each other. I think it would be unusual for an editor to have a proper look at an article and the sources that might be usable for the article in such short periods of time. Admittedly, most of your delete !votes are on uncontroversial deletions. But you get caught out: here on a delete !vote; and here !voting keep without checking verifiability. You usually change your mind when new sources become available - which is great - but it is better to be careful first. So I don't think you are careful enough with your delete !votes and they are often cursorily explained. That leads me to have doubts about AfD closes, particularly as there are questionable recent NACs ([3]). Having said all of that, I am willing to listen to any response to this oppose, for example, if I am unfairly considering things out of context. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. Multiple issues. Has a strange tendency to edit articles immediately after someone else has edited it, sometimes with pointless edits that add or remove space [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], or which introduce grammatical errors [11], style changes without gaining consensus [12]. (Bizarreness factor.)

   Understanding of article-writing and content policies is poor; see here at His father section, where he argued to erase mere mention of Ronnie O'Sullivan's father, despite his father having a critical role in his life, with arguments such as "The article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan not about his father" and "It was removed, because the article was not focused enough. Article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan, not about his father, who isn't notable. (If he were he would have an own article, where this information should be.)" (Was later persuaded that this information could be included.) See also here at Nicknames.

   AfD participation is high, but the majority of comments consist of "Delete as [subject] fails [some notability guideline]". Rarely is the justification explained. Many times when he was the first person to comment, he has had to strike his comments when subsequent editors voted to keep. Also made an inappropriate non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. Also don't see too many speedy tags applied in recent history.

   I first encountered this editor when trying to get Shaun Murphy (snooker player) (see history) to GA—one of the GA he cites—and found his participation less than optimal. For example, he added spaces before and after em dash (against MoS) [13], I reverted, then he changed the em dashes to commas, completely messing up the sentence [14]. Also unnecessarily added otheruses template to the article after I had deleted it. Whilst some of his edits were improvements, the vast majority were minor, and overall I found his participation less than entirely helpful. The other GA he cites, Jasmin Ouschan, was largely done by TonyTheTiger (see history). The candidate made 10 edits, 8 marked minor, the 2 non-minor also insignificant.

   Has a tendency to delete comments off his user page without explanation, so would not trust his talk archives to be an accurate record of his interactions, see [15] [16]. Regarding a RfC of KnowIG, another editor User:TreasuryTag attempted to contact the candidate about it. His response was to simply delete the comment multiple times [17] [18] [19]

   Also rarely uses edit summaries, even when making controversial edits and reverts, and NACs etc. Has a tendency to edit war without engaging in much discussion. Lack of significant content creation aside from minor tweaks and formatting. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

   You've raised many excellent points, however, it's not clear to me that the "pointless" edits of removing or adding a space were intentional, and I can see nothing "bizarre" in changing a long reflist to two columns to save space and improve appearance, nor is it a matter that typically requires community discussion. In wishing to register your strong opposition to this candidate, I think you've mixed in a few trivial points. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   Bizarreness was used to describe the tendency, almost a compulsion, to edit articles immediately after someone else had done so. I see this often on my watchlist, in which an edit to the snooker articles is usually accompanied by one from the candidate. Most are these are minor and uncontroversial, but some are simply strange. Along with the focus on minor issues, whilst neglecting the more important parts of the article, I feel KnowIG's second sentence may have some relevance. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose: Though in my few interactions with this user in the past he has appeared to be a good editor, unfortunately some of the issues raised above are too problematic to ignore; I had noticed previously that the user's !votes in AfDs often seem rushed and could be better researched prior to coming to a decision, and upon being reminded, I also recall the inappropriate NAC referenced by User:Christopher Connor above, as I reverted it myself at the time. It's a reasonable mistake for an editor to make, but illustrates that the user may have some work still to do before they can be an effective sysop. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I've taken a look at your 'tribs and you appear to be a valuable Wikipedian; however, I cannot ignore some of the issues raised by Mkativerata and by Christopher Connor, which make me feel uncomfortable trusting your judgement as an admin, especially when it comes to AFDs (your rushed !votes and that NAC are unreassuring, IMHO); and, finally, your use of edit summaries could definitely be improved... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
5. OPPOSE: Christopher Connor's thorough analysis SHOCKS me. I've seen Armbrust at AfDs, generally making rational comments, but those diffs exhibit utter incompetence in content work. Also, he closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. L. Langley inappropriately as "speedy keep" in violation of #3. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   SK#3 is irrelevant when #1 is satisfied; at the time of the close there is no outstanding argument for deletion. T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   I have struck that portion. It wasn't a violation, but the delete votes were struck solely based on the false assumption that AfD nominations by sockpuppets MUST be closed as keep. However, I cannot support Armbrust becoming a mod due to the many reasons given above. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   ADDENDUM: Answers to Q6 and Q7 are misguided. His characterisation this and this as personal attacks shows that he lacks an understanding of policy and tends to misrepresent WP:NPA. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   Those honesty are personal attacks. I'm sorry POW, but I think it is you who misunderstands WP:NPA.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   We have another bloke who misunderstands WP:NPA. The first diff contains an idiom (so please learn English). The second diff is commenting on an editor's ACTIONS, not their character. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   I would agree; they look like personal attacks to me, too. I do not see why you would vote against a candidate for deciding those diffs look like personal attacks. If there is any uncertainty over what a personal attack is, it should be addressed on a more appropriate page, not on RfAs. bobrayner (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   Should this vote be indented? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:32pm • 11:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   Personally, I don't think so; even though I too believe that was a personal attack, everyone is entitled to their opinions and this !vote is not blatantly disruptive. The closing 'crat will determine how much this oppose weighs. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with Salvio, I trust out crats know the NPA policy well and can determine for themselves the weight of this oppose.--Gordonrox24 |&nbsp ^Talk 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   Ok then, people are allowed to their opinion so long as their opinion is reasonable which in this case this !vote was far from reasonable. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:32pm • 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

   This was discussed on the ANI thread about PoW prior to them being blocked; I don't think indenting the !vote can be justified, but the questions themselves are simply pointy forum shopping, as the user was blocked for making such comments previously and clearly feels that an admin would have been treated different (from the phrasing of their question). Their !vote should remain (and the closing crat can indeed use their judgement), but personally I wouldn't have thought any less of Armbrust if he'd simply ignored the two questions posed by PoW. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose I'm not going to be nearly as dramatic as the actor above my vote, but the lackluster AFD !votes, wonky edits that create problems instead of fixing them, and especially no edit summaries in controversial edits and/or reverts is a dealbreaker. I cannot trust the candidate at this time. Vodello (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Well said Vodello. Mlpearc powwow 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose - per WP:NOTNOW. Christopher Connor sums it up well and after following up, I don't want to pile on more rationale. Armbrust appears to be a friendly, helpful and civil editor, and we all make occasional mistakes, but his editing pattern is still too unstable. If he can work on those deficiencies of AfD judgement, lack of edit summaries, and other points, I would probably find my way to support a new RfA in about six months time.Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Multiple issues raised by review of candidate's talk page, including questionable policy interpretations and iffy command of English language. Townlake (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose - Regretfully. Sorry, there's no doubt you're a good contributor but given the issues raised above I don't think you're ready for the tools at this time. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 3:19pm • 05:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Move to Support

10. Oppose On the grounds that you have communication issues. To an extent, we all suffer from this, so please don't take my vote as a judgement on your eventual ability to gain the mop. For now, I would simply prefer to see a greater degree of receptive and interactive communication (edit summaries, meaningfully explained tags, and substantive commentary) before I support your bid. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose with regret. While the problematic edits outlined above are only a tiny proportion of the 47,000 total edits, I'm afraid what I'm seeing looks like sub-optimal communication and attitude - failing to communicate (eg omitting edit summaries from contested edits, deleting messages asking for clarification), getting bogged down in disputes over trivial style changes, and over-eagerness and terseness in AfD, are not ideal behaviours for an admin. But I stress my regret, because I really do see a dedicated and prolific contributor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
12. The lack of communication is the deal breaker for me - a simple glance at your talk page is concerning in this respect as well as revealing. As an aside, carrying all the personal stuff on your user page isn't to wise IMHO (but nothing to do with my comment regarding your RFA). Sorry and I hope that this request provides some good feedback. Pedro :  Chat  19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with judgement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Sorry brilliant editor but no. Ownage of snooker project can be seen as intimidating to other editors. And immature behaviour/refual to write to explain edits, although I do notice that since his been nominated he has used them on every ocassion. Here he stuck the wrong reference in refused to go to the talkoage page and carried on warring. I go to the talk page and he still refused to admit what was wrong with it. When I say wrong reference he turned round and said well why didn't you say that inciting that he knew exactly what was wrong with it. And then promptly did it right. 1. And has had numerous of other trivial wars recently. Sorry but oppose, but keep up the contributions. KnowIG (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose As others say, a good editor but not administrator material. MtD (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I don't mind occasional quirks of grammar or punctuation (although when I tried looking at some random edits, the first one I saw involved Armbrust returning to an old comment on a talkpage after somebody else had replied, and changing their own text to break the grammar). In an international community I'd rather prioritise productive work over linguistic pedantry. However, the interaction with other wikipedians mentioned above looks worse (ie. failing to respond to concerns, and/or deleting them), as does the hastiness at AfD. I'm sure Armbrust is a great contributor, but I do not think they would be a great admin. bobrayner (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose per many of the editors above me, especially Christopher Connor and his detailed analysis. Aarmbrust seems like a great guy, but I'm not sure with a contribution history which Connor has brought up that I'd be fully comfortable making him a sysop. Nomader ^(Talk) 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose Sorry, but the quality of your written english is not high enough to be an admin. --Stephen 05:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose - I can honestly say that this person is a fantastic editor and we should all be grateful for having them on the project, but I don't see enough evidence to counteract the issues brought up earlier in this RfA. I really hope they work more on their AfD contributions and come back at a later date. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

    I agree this candidate is a fantastic editor and we should all be grateful for having 'him' on the project. I am changing to support because the concerns raised represent a very small % of this candidate's large number of edits. Also after looking more closely at his activities on behalf of the welcoming and birthday committees, clearly his motivation is to make this a better place to work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

20. Oppose per Christopher Connor and Know|G, particularly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose due to judgement and communication concerns.  Chzz  ►  01:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I've seen him do good work in various areas, as well as make some poor decisions and questionable comments in deletion discussions (Christopher Connor's oppose above mentions some of these things). Overall, I've found Armbrust to be a good user, but I can't bring myself to support right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral established editor, but the above oppses do not allow me to support at this time. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral On the fence for now. Answers to my questions will likely tip my vote one way or the other. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   Changing vote. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   Indented vote for you ;) Bot was still counting this as a neutral. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:10pm • 07:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral, a committed editor who has made substantial contributions to the site. However, the issues stated above does cast doubt over the handling of AfDs. -Reconsider | speak 12:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral I too am concerned by the same things as raised by the opposes, but I will not pile-on oppose. I would suggest that it might be an idea for the candidate to withdraw this RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral i can not Support at this time. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral Cannot support right now. This is a hard-working user, but the opposers bring up valid and worrisome concerns. I'd be more than happy to support once these have been addressed. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I can't support at this time due to multiple issues. I'd be happy to support in six months once you've improved. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral—Fantastic overall contributions, but I'm concerned about the issues brought up by the opposers, namely some hasty XfD !votes and communication skills. I do hope you'll try again once you've worked on these points, Airplaneman ✈ 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral Leaning towards oppose, but landing in the neutral camp to encourage this editor to continue making good contributions and apply for the mop in a bit. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral — per Airplaneman —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral. I see a lot of good work out of this candidate, but there are some lingering issues that need work - and these have been discussed at length above. I would highlight, though, the fact that there are so many of us here under "Neutral" - this is a good indication of the positive work that the candidate is doing overall, and that there may be a lot more support for a later RFA that shows good progress. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
12. I don't intend to pile on with an oppose, as although I can't support I did see good qualities in the contributions. I wasn't going to comment at all, but linking to a live, deletion-reviewed and relisted AfD of an article subject to ArbCom sanctions doesn't say "excellent judgement" to me. Something to bear in mind for next time. --WFC-- 15:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Neutral I wish the best of luck here, but there have been too many points brought up earlier to support. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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.