Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AuburnPilot

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

AuburnPilot

[edit]

Final (78/1/1); Ended Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:00:05 UTC

AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate AuburnPilot for adminship. He has been editing since July 2006 and is one of the best anti-vandalism patrollers on Wikipedia. He initially expressed doubts as to his success, because he is not active in XfD discussions, but most Wikipedians are starting to agree that XfD isn't the end-all of adminship. We desperately need help at AIV. AuburnPilot is patient with newcomers but firm with vandals, always keeps his cool, follows procedure, and understands policy. It's time we gave him the tools he needs. Kafziel Talk 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. auburnpilot talk 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional statement
As stated above, I was initially hesitant to accept a nomination due to my lack of participation in WP:XfD; an area of Wikipedia that I frankly cannot stand. I prefer, and enjoy, editing articles and fighting vandalism. I realized that no matter how long I waited before committing to an RfA, my deletion participation would not change. I could spend hours at AfD debating articles over the next few months just to look good at RfA, but I honestly do not ever intend to go near AfD even if granted adminship. Thanks in advanced to everyone who takes the time to comment and especially Kafziel for the nomination. auburnpilot talk 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To those who like to add optional questions, I will be away from the computer from 4pm to midnight CST but will address any issues later tonight/early tomorrow morning. auburnpilot talk 21:13, 26 February 2007 (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 participants:

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: The area I will not be helping with is WP:AfD. I only comment on AfDs when they happen to articles on my watchlist or ones I stumble across while reading the encyclopedia. I certainly will not be closing them. Though I tend to stay away from the broader terms of inclusionist/deletionist, I’d say I lean more towards erring on the side of inclusion. If we are truly attempting to create the sum of all knowledge, we need to relax our deletion finger a bit.
Areas that I plan on helping with are WP:AIV, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and parts of C:CSD. As a vast majority of my edits come from vandal fighting, I already monitor WP:AIV and help keep reported vandals under control until an admin is able to block. Being able to do so myself would definitely benefit my efforts in this area.
In regards to WP:SSP, I’ve come in contact with more than a few socks on talk pages across Wikipedia. Though I did not submit the report, as the disruption died off and the report wasn’t necessary, some of my efforts in this area can be seen in archive 2 of my talk page here. Thankfully, the disruption stopped and since blocks are not punitive, I dropped the issue.
WP:RM and WP:RPP are fairly self explanatory and I would lend a hand in these areas as well. As to C:CSD, I say I will participate in parts of this area because again, deletions are not my thing. I would focus on the subcats, more specifically, CAT:ASD, CAT:SPAM, CAT:NSD, and author requests.
All this said, the majority of my admin actions would still revolve around the areas I focus on as an editor: improving the encyclopedia and keeping vandalism to a dull roar.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While most of my edits have admittedly revolved around vandal fighting, I have created several articles and a template or two with which I am quite pleased. My shortest contribution, List of Lieutenant Governors of Alabama, is probably the one I’m most pleased with. This was the first in-depth (or what I thought was in-depth at the time) wikitable I had created. While the article itself is short, the time it took for me to put the chart together and have it come out correctly was very satisfying. There were easier ways to accomplish the table, but hindsight is 20/20 and all. In conjunction with this article, I created {{AlabamaLtGovernors}} for placement within the articles created (and to be created) for each of Lt. Governor of Alabama. Again, this may have been a small task, but it was the first of my attempts and more than satisfying to see it come out correctly. Of my other “new” contributions, I am also pleased with Live in the X Lounge, an article about a charity album-series which benefits Cerebral palsy research. Unfortunately, the radio-station and production group behind the series have ceased to exist, and reliable sources have become slim to none. While I’m actively searching for references, the shutdown has killed off some of the best ones out there.
As far as expansion of pre-existing articles, I’m most pleased with taking the article on the Mountain Brook School System (my ‘‘alma mater’’) from this stub to its current form.
All images I’ve uploaded can be found on one of my subpages (User:AuburnPilot/Images), divided between fair use and public domain. I also have an account on commons under the same name, which can be found here. I’m currently moving the images I’ve taken with my own camera over to commons so they may be used on any project. Though nobody has requested anything so far, I have listed myself on Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service; I’m available for both ground and aerial shots within Alabama and would be happy to contribute here as well.
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 think we’ve all encountered conflicts and a bit of stress at some time or another. I’ve found that simply stepping away from the situation and removing the page causing conflict from my watchlist for a few days to be the best solution to Wikistress.
Though it had the greatest end result, the smallest conflict I’ve been in involved Birmingham, Alabama. An anon user was adding unsourced claims that corruption within the Birmingham Water Works was the reason water bills had increased and that crime had increased “due to the destruction of New Orleans, which increased the number of poor and homeless in Birmingham.” [1]. I reverted the changes, believing at the time that I was within guideline/policy to do so. I filed a 3RR report [2] and was subsequently blocked for violating it myself [3]. I took this as an opportunity to study the relevant policies and I have insured that I stay clear of three reversions in a 24hr period.
The longest, most drawn out conflict I’ve been involved with revolves around Fox News Channel. The debate started in mid October 2006 and continued until I stepped away in mid January 2007 (3 months). The debate included 2 RfC’s and 2 requests for arbitration (one tossed as a content dispute, the second the first case to fall victim to the committee’s new ‘‘4 net vote’’ policy; 4/2/0[4]). With discussion that spans multiple archives and more sockpuppets than actual participants, this was an excessive conflict. After 3 months of discussion, I finally stepped away in order to preserve my sanity and the conflict seems to have finally died. Other minor conflicts usually result from vandals upset over subsequent blocks and people who don’t understand Wikipedia isn’t their personal soapbox. I'm fairly calm online and in real life so my wikistress remains quite low and has yet to effect me offline.

Optional question from Eli Falk

4. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?
A: Well, the most obvious answer would be if it's only been vandalized the one time, as protection shouldn't be applied as a first step. The Main Page receives special treatment in this area as WP:NOPRO explains. Though whether or not to protect the main page featured article is up for debate, I agree that protection should only be used in the rare case where editors need to sort things out. This is our "welcome mat" article and it must be open for as many people as possible. One article on my watchlist that receives vandalism, Alabama, is good example. Of the last 50 edits, only one was not vandalism or a reversion. The vandalism is not frequent enough to receive protection as one or two editors may hit the page per day/every few days, but the changes are usually revert quickly. If the repeat vandalism is coming from a specific user or IP, a short block may solve the problem without cutting off the rest of our anonymous editors. We bill ourselves as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so protection should be used sparingly. auburnpilot talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - I have seen this editor around and would support them as an administrator! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pleased to offer my I-beat-the-nominator-to-it support. This editor seems reasonable and useful, and unlikely to do dumb things with the buttons. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom and pleased to see that support here is so fast I couldn't get out in front. Kafziel Talk 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, good nom & answers, good to see a bold anti-vandalism application and an honest approach to the XfD obsession. All the best. The Rambling Man 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support JoshuaZ 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Excellent Vandal fighter, like Persian Poet Gal, Glen S, and Nishkid64.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom, the candidate's good overall record, and the commitment to help in some understaffed areas. I, too, was not familiar with or committed to participating in every area where administrators work before accepting my nomination. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Vandals, socks, speedies, and albums! What more could you want? And the honesty is much appreciated. Bubba hotep 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support: Excellent at opposing vandals. I find myself blocking vandals reported at AIV by this user all the time. More XfD could be good; however, what's there suggests a solid understanding of policy. Heimstern Läufer 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I see his reports to WP:AIV all the time. Excellent work.--Húsönd 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, only seen good from this user (and could've sworn you already were one). Trebor 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - absolutely! A very qualified candidate and not a bad vandal fighter.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support -- "support" because he's a good contributor and "strong" because of his fearlessly candid comments about XfD that made me smile. Normally I like to see XfD experience, but I respect his comments and I know he'll make a great admin handling all the other things admins do. --A. B. (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Air-prove! Active WP:AIV reporter, will put the tools to good use. Majorly (o rly?) 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - per solid article writing. Addhoc 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support with FLYING COLOURS! - enough said, this guy should do well in his new role as admin! --sunstar nettalk 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per fixed criteria for supporting RfA on my user page Edivorce 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Rama's arrow 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support-Great user. Thought he was already an admin. But then I remember that was PilotGuy. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Ugh...was on my to-nominate list. AuburnPilot's a great candidate for adminship, and I have no doubt that he'll make a great admin. Nishkid64 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I commented at one of the RfCs on Fox News Channel and I thought AuburnPilot handled himself well in that conflict. Plus, almost anyone who says they'll help at WP:SSP is going to get my vote, we need more admins addressing that page. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - even though your signature is blue and orange. --BigDT 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support (cliche omitted) —Doug Bell talk 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Definately a good potential admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Edit history indicates no problems. The evidence to which Arjun refers is entirely unconvincing. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    huh: What do you mean alludes, I am simply pointing out a fact which is evidenced in this RFA. I am not trying to make you change that comment...I am just saying that I am not making stuff up as I go along :). I just personally don't like the whole "can't stand XFD things". Cheers. ~ Arjun 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction accepted, was unnecessarily dismissive. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-27 04:47Z
  30. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. - NYC JD (make a motion) 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, vandal fighter, needs tools. And XfD participation is only important if you're planning on closing them, which the candidate has clearly stated he won't. – riana_dzasta 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support about time! Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:23, Tuesday, 27 February '07
  34. Support definitely. - Anas Talk? 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Oui, s'il vous plait.--Jersey Devil 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 13:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Lack of XfD participation is no prob for an admin candidate who has no intention to close them. Knowledge of policy is shown through contributions elsewhere. WjBscribe 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support He went to Auburn University. That's enough for me. While it looks like he's also done a great job editing WP, the Auburn connection just blows away any other qualification :-).--Alabamaboy 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support in spite of highly questionable college selection (sorry, I had to...) Anyway, I've seen nothing but good edits from this user, the nom is trustworthy and the answers to the questions are fine. What's not to like? Not concerned with lack of interest in AfD, even though that's one of my main areas of focus as an admin. Not all admins work in all areas, and that's fine! It's natural to specialize in a few things you're good at and interested in. --W.marsh 16:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    War Eagle ;-). auburnpilot talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak Support Good answers to questions. Will raise to regular support if the candidate promises to put himself back up for rfa if the avulsion to xfds subsides and there's some contreversy due to the inexperience of not going into them prior to that (like making a questionable closing). If I could get a pledge that he'd be available for some kind of recall, i'd also raise my support level. Just Heditor review 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak Support I really honestly believe what it comes down to is trust, I have always said that. Trust to me is very important...and when I ask "do I trust this user for the tools" I have to say yes. However I am still going weak because I think that XFD's "are" important; but meh. ~ Arjun 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I really don't see a problem with specialization, when the candidate is a good editor. Xiner (talk, email) 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I find XfD dull too. Anyways, you look like a great user. · AO Talk 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Quality editor. I appreciate the honesty about XfD--it's not for everyone. I feel confident that this user would effectively use the admin tools to benefit many other areas that always need attention. -- Scientizzle 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Cleared for Adminship Everything seems to be in order here. —Pilotguy contact ground 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Very strong support I've crossed paths with AuburnPilot many times on Wikipedia, and I have always known him to be a fair, judicoius, and reasonable editor. Our viewpoints may differ greatly, but I can honestly say that if there is anyone who's judgement and fairness on Wikipedia I trust, this is he. I would have nominated months ago, but until recently he was not accepting applications. I encourage the approval of this candidate post haste. /Blaxthos 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - BJTalk 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support looks like an excellent candidate.-- danntm T C 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support One of the most even-keeled and fair editors out there. Would be an excellent addition to the mopped ranks--Looper5920 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Artaxiad 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support I believe firmly that Wikipedians need to apply themselves to the areas they have an affinity for. Admins as well. While I recognize the great need for XfD work from admins as basic WP housekeeping, this candidate's views on XfDs does not disqualify him in the least to me. Vandal fighting counts plenty in my book. 'nuff said. PigmanTalk to me 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Good answers to questions. Tons of AIV reports, bag 'em and tag 'em. —Dgiest c 07:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support.PeaceNT 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support-Excellent vandal fighter and editor, always willing to help out a newbie like me.--Mbc362 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Great contribs and great answers. John Reaves (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support Is he not an admin yet? His vandalism fighting history is awesome! --Meno25 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Khoikhoi 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Very active user and a strong vandalism fighter. gidonb 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support Active contributor with refreshingly candid responses to questions. Will be an excellent admin. Raymond Arritt 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support this user looks like a good candidate. Admins don't need to close XfD's to be useful. James086Talk 05:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Excellent editor that should be trusted with the mop. Won't close XfDs so not sure why the "I can't stand XfD" comment should be held against him. There's plenty of other work to do.Pascal'Tesson 06:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support- A very Excellent choice (Dont Judge a book by its cover).XfD's are just excuses..Best of Luck..--Cometstyles 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, I see no reason to anticipate abuse, so what if he'd personally rather stay away from AfD? AfD is not the only admin task. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, good answers, good track record. Irrelevant to your RfA, but I wish you'd reconsider involvement at XfD; staying away won't help to "relax our deletion finger a bit". · j e r s y k o talk · 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support John254 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I have seen you around and have a good feeling about you becoming an administrator. Cbrown1023 talk 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support; I've always thought he was excellent admin material, but I remember a "this user is not an admin and doesn't wish to be one" userbox on his page for a long time. I will presume that had to do with the XfD issue, and support, since I always wanted to. Antandrus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. There is no question that Wikipedia will benifit of you beeing an admin. Good luck. -Rettetast 20:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Michael 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Pile on Support. Plenty of tasks other than XFD that need doing. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Thorough answers to the questions, and comments in regards to XfD show that he cares more about representing himself honestly than "winning" adminship. Dekimasuよ! 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - excellent responses, trustworthy contributor and I loved the comment about XfD. Self-deprecating honesty is an admirable trait and only helps instil confidence. --Dweller 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. You notice how most admins say they're going to help with WP:AFD? That's generally taken care of enough that we can have admins who do other work. support --Wizardman 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - excellent user. I met AuburnPilot some time ago at Talk:George W. Bush and was impressed with this user's balanced and levelheaded talkspace contributions. Also plenty of edits, and good answers to questions above. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per nom. Sarah 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak Oppose I hope I am not coming off a little too harsh but coming out and stating "cannot stand" XFD's seems a little...odd to me. I don't like that tone and also this user isn't very active in the Wikispace [5]. Also (not as bad) this user just recently changed the "this user doesn't want to become an administrator to the admin hopeful userbox which the change can be seen here. [6]. Well anyway I might change to support but I just don't feel 100% comfortable to do so now, obviously this RFA is looking fine and I wish you luck. ~ Arjun 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) changed to weak support[reply]
  1. Oppose, like Arjun, but with stronger sense, I find the statement "cannot stand XFD's" unacceptable. The work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs. Moreover, it seems that you're a bit reluctant to accept the nomination. If you succeed in this RfA, will you properly devote to your duties as an admin? Causesobad → (Talk) 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs. Does it? Majorly (o rly?) 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless the admin chooses to take up XfDs. There's a ton of work for admins--enough that even if an admin works 24/7 they can't be expected do all the jobs which need admin assistance. The choice of what admin work an admin does is ultimately up to that admin (just wanted to see how many times I could slip admin into this sentence :-)--Alabamaboy 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to "poke the opposers" but there seems to be a direct questions here. As stated in the nomination, my statement, and the answers to the questions, my hesitation was the RfA itself, not the responsibilities of an admin. Not to fluff my own ego, but I believe I will handle the tools responsibly, and my hesitation was that people would not be able to look passed my lack of participation in XfD. I'm not sure why the fact that I don't like participating in these discussions is "unacceptable", but it is simply a personal preference that I wanted to make clear. Granted adminship, my participation in this area is simply not going to change and I wished to ease any fear that I will go knocking down every article nominate. I doubt every admin participates in every aspect of Wikipedia, and I find the statement that "the work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs" to be false. If every one of the 1000+ admins actively closed and deleted items, there would never be a backlog.
    To your final question, I will certainly devote myself to the duties of an admin. I have outlined the areas where I intend to participate and will begin immediately if this RfA is successful. auburnpilot talk 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As my statement above, the work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs and I still hold my opinion. Also, you say that "every one of the 1000+ admins actively closed and deleted items". Do you have any clues that proves your statement? Have you many times taken part in XfDs to know exactly how many admins really active in these fields? If every one of the 1000+ admins thinks just like you "can't stand XfDs", who will do all the tasks there? Moreover, my reasons to oppose not only limit in the XfDs thing, the kernel matter which makes me consider to vote to oppose is your attitude to the work of admin. Just look back, we have over 1000+ admins, a considerable number, in my opinion, but in fact, how many out of those 1000+ admins dedicate to their work? I don't want to vote useless support and then the backlogs still incessantly rise day by day although there're averagely 5-6 successful candidates a day. However, according to your answer, I have no choice but to trust you because you hold 100% pass this RfA but I still keep my oppose vote as a reminder. Hope that you will accomplish your duties as you say. Causesobad → (Talk) 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Conflicted. Seems like a great canidate except...yeah XfD. Still, this editor seems to be locked up on everything else and the fact that he has well and acknowledged his weakness in that area is a good thing. I'm hoping he will focus on his "weak area" as is needed when he is granted his adminship. If he were too assure me of that I would have no problem supporting this nom. Either way AuburnPilot will get it so good luck! NeoFreak 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AuburnPilot&oldid=1207760049"