Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Finalnight

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

Finalnight

Final (51/22/4); Withdrawn by candidate at 17:45 17 July, 2008 (UTC)

Finalnight (talk · contribs) - I've recently asked Finalnight "where have I seen you before?", only to realize upon digging through his contributions that I've seen him everywhere. FN, in a quiet, nondramatic, and intelligent way, has contributed positively to Wikipedia in many ways, and I'm convinced he can only help us as an administrator. I first encountered FN editing an article that is high up on both our contribution lists, 2007 Minnesota Vikings season, back in December 2007. His first diff on my talkpage, you'll notice, was not only to make a post, but quietly and expertly fix a header? That's what I'm talking about—he didn't have to fix the "new editor's post? directly above his, but he did. Quietly, unassumedly, and most importantly, correctly. Administrators are meant to be proficient, vocal when necessary, and at the same time are also meant to be the "behind the scenes" editors that keep the encyclopedia running smoothly and with minimal disruption. At the point of posting on my talk 7 months ago, FN had been editing regularly as an IP (see his userpage). Clearly, FN is an editor that is here for the betterment of the encyclopaedia. He is a prolific editor in his 7 months of (named) tenure, with over 3000 quality edits, (closer to 4000 with IP edits), always working towards improving our site. He is an established and trusted account creator, he is a rollbacker, and he is an article builder, with emphasis on sports related articles. Notwithstanding his team affiliations, which I happen to adamantly agree with as being in good taste, he has a level of clue that I have found refreshing and complete upon vetting his contribs. He knows what he's doing in article space, article talk, user talk, at XfDs, within WikiProjects, at ACC, at RFA, and everywhere else I've seen his name. I present to you, esteemed community, Finalnight for consideration. I have no doubt in my mind that Finalnight will not only never abuse the tools, he won't even bother with "misusing" them either. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and appreciate your vote of confidence in me.--Finalnight (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2008 (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: Pardon if this is long, but I feel it is important for everyone to know what I will be doing if my account gets syop permission. For the immediate future, I plan on continuing in the areas I have already been working on and I view the janitorial tools as a way for me to continue doing what I have been doing but without having to ask admins to complete tasks for me or waiting for them to be completed.

AIV and anti-vandalism activities will be a big focus for me. Namely, handling the AIV backlogs, dealing with persistent ip vandals, etc instead of only being able to report or rollback. I plan to continue vandalism patrolling though that has evolved for me and lately I have been working on cleaning up after users who don't properly warn or report to aiv etc when using automated tools. Also, I am big on following up on things, ie, users who improperly delete csd/afd tags, ip's who vandalize their talk pages so the auto-huggle stuff doesn't catch or report them properly. I am the guy who goes an hour back in recent changes to see what was missed or not noticed.

I will also be continuing my ACC interface work, ie the creating of new accounts as well as the banning of vandals/spammers on the interface. Right now, when a new user request triggers anti-spoof, I have to elevate the request to an admin to handle it, which adds to the ACC backlog, this will help me keep it down. Also I work on the ACC queue when there are often not a lot of people on, so I will be able to better keep the backlogs in check. Also, now I will be able to handle requests that require usurption of inactive usernames too instead of elevating the request. Finally, I will be able to keep an eye on vandal ip's that the interface receives and take appropriate action on wikipedia too.

I will continue to work in the afd/csd area. The csd backlogs have been getting pretty large lately, so I will help out with that. Also, right now, I can only close afd's that result in merge, redirect, or keep. Having syop permissions will allow me to close delete results as well, keep the crazy backlogs down that have been plaguing afd as of late.

Finally, I think I have been an open editor who will engage in dialogue and provide assistence where I can, I would like to continue as an "accessible" syop who handles things like request for rollback, request for account creator, and the other million relatively routine things that editors might need help with.

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

A: I don't really have a "best" contribution to Wikipedia. I think I have a lot of really good contributions. I would point out my help with getting the Star Trek: First Contact and The Tales of Beedle the Bard articles to GA. I think I have done some good things helping out at WP:COMPANIES with rating articles and working on some back office stuff there. I believe I have done a lot of good in the area of anti-vandalism activities. I believe my edits show that I am not just a automated tool user, if you watch my edits you see where I stray off recent changes, follow subtle/persistent vandals and follow-up, follow-up, follow-up to make sure the situation is properly handled. I also like my work with the NFL project and the work I have done with WP:Universities.

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: Sure, I have been in conflict with several users over my time at wikipedia. However, nothing has ever reached the point of neccesitating third party intervention. Nearly every time, once the user and I establish dialog, we reach a reasonable settlement to our differences. Communication is everything and from my time on wikipedia, lack of good communication between parties seems to be one of the biggest sources of conflict.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: Just read this scenario the other day and have encountered similar. In this specific scenario, the editor is asking me to assume good faith for his future conduct when the overwhelming majority of their contributions so far have shown that they are not acting in good faith. Also, their specific actions clearly constituted blatant vandalism and personal attacks. I would decline the request and advise the editor to reapply in 4 days. If the editor reapplied in 4 days (which by the way is the auto-confirm wait period as well), then it would show that perhaps the editor is committed to constructively contributing (my experience is that most vandals get bored within a short period of time and leave). Pending the nature of their reinstatement request, I would reinstate and monitor the IP closely until I became confident that the risk of future vandalism was minimal.--Finalnight (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber

5. Are cool-down blocks ever permissible?

A. No, unless Tony Dungy is giving them out as he is all-knowing and all-powerful. Seriously though, I don't see them as serving a purpose. I view cool-downs as something to use when dealing with a dangerous situation or union negotiation IRL. An editor is responsible for their actions regardless of whether they are angry or not. If they do something that is a blockable offense, they get blocked, if not, then they don't. Giving someone a block to stop them from doing something that would get them blocked seems farcical.--Finalnight (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow talk about brown nosing the !voters!!! ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, in my defense, Tony Dungy used to play for my alma matter and coached for the Vikings when they hit the playoffs three years in a row and were ranked #1 in defense.--Finalnight (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from BigHairRef

6. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not the only reasonable applicable and likely reasoning?

A: It depends on the area of wikipedia being !voted on. Generally, when I am ascertaining consensus for afd closures or proposals, I don't give as much weight to a "per x" !vote than someone who takes the time to write out their reasoning for or against a position. The more specific and clear a !voter is, the more weight their argument would receive. For example saying "Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs" is weighted more than "Delete per WP:N". Also, I give less weight to arguments if the "X" is pointing to another editor's argument. IE "Delete per UserXYZ" or "Delete per nom". With all that being said, unless the !vote is completely off-topic, it always deserves some consideration and if unsure about the meaning of the argument, I might ask a follow-up question or apply the "X" cited to the issue in question to see if I can determine the validity of the argument.--Finalnight (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Question from Jon513 (talk)

7. According to the rules hoaxes are generally not speediable, except when they are "blatant and obvious". Where do you draw the line between "blatant and obvious hoaxes" that are speediable and one's that are "even remotely plausible"?

A. I assume you are asking about hoax articles not articles about hoaxes, many get confused between the two when doing afd's/csd's. Your question is a very general question regarding things that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis so pardon any vagueness in my response. There is no clear bright line for me. I think speediable articles are clearly contradicting common knowledge or a very well-known and documented fact. Also, when the article is directly contradicting known reliable articles/reliable sources without reliable sources (or even semi-reliable sources) of its own to back it up. Another biggie that would push me to go for speedy vs prod or afd would be a hoax that involves a BLP as it is important that we do not allow false information about living persons to be dissimenated from wikipedia. For example, if there is an article created covering the election of Jimbo Wales as the new president of "Swift Boat Veteran's for Objectivism truth" which clearly contradicts all reliable information on the subject and the article shows no sources to back it's claims, then I would speedy it. Another example of something I would speedy would be a simply absurd article, like an article about real-life Pokemon or something. Remotely plausible is obviously a subjective call, but I would be define it as something that does not defy common sense, common knowledge, or common reason.--Finalnight (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from NuclearWarfare

8. Please define notability in your own words.

A. Notability determines an article's merit to be included within our wikimedia project. Basically, it means that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. However, this is all subject to the community established criteria on suitability for inclusion.--Finalnight (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

9. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A. Blocks are technical measures by admins, bureaucrats, and stewards to prevent IP's or accounts from contributing to the project for various reasons as outlined in the blocking policy. Bans are policies or decisions to prevent a user from contributing to all or part of a project. Bans can be issues by the community, arbcom, jimbo, and office actions. Blocks are a technical move used to implement these decisions.--Finalnight (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

10. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A. With all due respect, I have written quite a bit already for my RfA and will not be writing essays to lengthy hypothetical scenarios with multiple questions attached. I believe I have demonstrated a good faith effort to answer your other questions. I understand if you !vote in opposition as a result, but this is my decision.--Finalnight (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is almost enough to get me to change my!vote! I hate those "AGF" questions in RfA's...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Nominator support. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 01:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - reviewing the contribs shows a user who demonstrates understanding of processes here, is polite and reasonable, has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart etc.. No reason to not support - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Of course. ?Giggy 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Such a noble creature. A quality we sometimes lack. We will add your distinctiveness to our own. ?xenocidic (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Ever since I met this user a few months ago, I've always seen Finalnight doing some constructive editing. Looking through most of this user's contributions, I'm even more impressed at what this user has done. Good answers also. Would be a great administrator. ^_^ -- RyRy (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support I have never had interaction with this user, but he looks like he has a clean slate, and I know I can trust him with the tools. Good luck!! America69 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Go for it! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support One of the best RfA's I've seen in a while. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Generally, I don't contribute to "certain to pass" RfA's, but I'm willing to make an exception. Over a thousand high-quality mainspace edits, good experience in policy (almost 300 wikipedia edits), and over 700 user talk edits show an ability to communicate vital to an admin. I could learn a thing or two from this user, it seems! :) Good luck from Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Support A civil editor who I am sure will not abuse the tools, and demonstrates a need for them. Answers to questions are thoughtful and in-depth. We need more admins like this one. Artichoker^[talk] 02:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Changed to Oppose. Artichoker[talk] 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

10. Support Because I'd like to balance out an 'oppose' that seems to be based on the editor's wikistance. He also has a much more "productive" mainspace to supporting space edit ratio than I do. :) He has more comments on GA nominations than deletion debates--it hardly helps to hang him out to dry over alleged deletionism. He uses edit summaries fastidiously, wikignomes, and his very first edit was to join a project. He is almost the complete opposite of me, in short, a perfect admin candidate. :) Protonk (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    It matters in that one of three roles an admin has relates to how they will or will not likely close AfDs; that along with how they will block/unblock and protect/unprotect distinguishes an admin from regular editors. Their wikistance, i.e. how they interpret policies/guidelines in practice, is one way of determining how they will likely read deletion discussions. My two experiences listed below give me cause for concern. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    I disagree strongly. If we think an editor will abuse the tools to further a stance then the vote should be oppose up and down. If we think an editor will interpret policy in a reasonable fashion but not to our liking, then the issue should be moot. And specifically in this case it is absurd. The editor has 1649 mainspace edits and 20 edits on AfD. That's a pretty poor sample size to begin with but even if we accept the sample size we have to entertain the proposition that wikistance probably isn't that important for this editor. If it were me applying for adminship (with more AfD edits than mainspace edits), we could assume that my wikistance made up a fundamental part of my self image. Even in my case, I would hope that the moment of truth came when editors asked themselves if I would use the admin tools to further an agenda. But in this case it appears to be almost totally superfluous. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    You don't need to be an admin to work in mainspace areas; thus what matters most for RfAs is what we can see as far as how an admin will work in admin areas, such as deletion discussions. Someone can be a fantastic editor and a wonderful member of our community as an encyclopedia builder and yet we can still have concerns for how they might use admin tools, which are of course different aspects of the project. Dismissing how they will likely participate in such discussions is absurd. It matters a great deal how someone may close AfDs as if they wish to close as delete in cases like the below where there was a decisive consensus to keep or a lack of consensus then they can be undoing coutless hours of volunteer work in an instant. The nominations matter, because admins are those who see speedy delete tags and either turn them down or act on them. As I cannot see deleted contribs, I am thus stuck going with nominations and whether those were strong. I am thus not persuaded by my two experiences of the candidate's AfD participation. That does not mean the candidate has not done good work for our project or would automatically misuse the tools, but it does give me some pause when considering how they might close AfDs, hence the "weak oppose." --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    That is pretty weak tea. If you think the admin will intepret consensus improperly then it behooves you to say this. Would you oppose a candidate for an RfA who had a keep record in AfD? Would a misinterpretation of consensus there be a problem? Nevermind. Don't answer. I'll leave the first two sentences as they are. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    I have replied at User talk:Protonk#Quick comment. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC

    Protonk, I think you need to review your facts again... I just did a straw poll of his recent !votes and (as far as I could determine) he had 54 DELETES, 3 Keeps, and 9 Merge/Redirects. Also, most of his 1600 edits to the mainspace are cosmetic, not meaningful.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    Ah. Let me re-check that. Either way, listing "deletes" out of context is unhelpful. Did he vote to delete on snow keeps? On articles that were well within community consensus to delete? Did he not find compelling reason to vote keep for items? It is helpful to look at individual edits in context and make specific claims as to their validity. I just don't think it is descriptive or helpful to consider the delete votes as evidence of a philosophy (apart from the fact that if we don't think this philosophy will impact his use of the tools, we shouldn't be worried). Protonk (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    Ok. I was adding up the "highest number" of AfD comments on the talk page here. I missed 1 liners. Still doesn't change my point. If all 53 times he voted delete he had some worthwhile rationale to do so, what is the problem? I'm not concerned that an editor may hold an opinion that is distinct from consensus nor am I concerned if an editor chooses to voice a deletion opinion far more than a keep opinion. Most of what is in AfD is not there by mistake. Some is. Usually those get saved by someone and so they don't need a "ZOMG keep" piled on top. Sometimes what is kept or deleted is contentious (nucular, nuked the fridge, United Airlines in Popular culture). I couldn't fault an editor for being on either side of that debate because both sides held some reasonable beliefs about the application of policy. Likewise I can't fault an editor for "voting" delete on something where they hold a reasonable belief that policy suggests deletion. A reasonable criticism can be raised if the editor misapplied policy, misrepresented policy or was ignorant of critical issues (and acted anyway). If and when those specific criticisms are raised, I won't comment about them. But it is not fair to tar the editor with a label on the basis of raw numbers alone. People are free to hold and express the opinion that deletionists should not be given the mop. That opinion is not free from scrutiny, should it be expressed here. I do, however, want to thank you for correcting me on the numbers bit. Thanks. As for the "mostly cosmetic" mainspace edits; someone has to do it. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    I would like to take the opportunity to agree with Protonk here. What I feel that Balloonman is missing is that a majority of 'delete' AfD votes does not mean that Finalnight is necessarily a deletionist. Quite the contrary; he's taken time to build up some articles to GA-class, and clearly understands the effort involved. Rather than merely counting AfD votes, what we should be looking for are votes that are against consensus, or ones with poor rationales. GlassCobra 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    I think using raw keep/delete ratio as an RfA criterion would be moving in the wrong direction from editicountitis by orders of magnitude, for the reasons give by Protonk & GlassCobra. Let's all just not go there. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

11. Support - Tiptoety ^talk 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - Meets my criteria. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Yep. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC).
15. Support - use of Huggle doesn't bother me one iota, and you have done very well at account creation so I do not see any problem in giving you this right. Good luck, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Weak support - I actually found this a tough one. I took Keeper's introduction, Finalnight's statements and the oppose/support reasons into careful consideraton. It has taken me a while. Negative points I picked up on included what remains a relatively low Wikipedia-space participation, but that is because he has only been with us about half a year. There is also a disappointingly low interaction rate with other users, both on his own talkpage and others'. But while automated tool usage was pointed out to be factor, it was not nearly as bad as I expected it to be. This user is an excellent vandal fighter, and will make good use of administrative tools. Good article builder too, and essentially knows what he is doing. And the in-depth, thoughtful answers to the questions are impressive. In light of this, I am just about willing to offer Finalnight my support. :) I recommend a thorough reading of this essential stuff and lots of practice at the admin school before putting the tools to use in the "real Wikipedia world". Lradrama 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Lradrama 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - isn't a vandal and therefore meets my criteria for having the buttons. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - Despite concerns about lack of work in certain areas as ohers have outlined, I have reviewed your contribuions and feel that your work is a net positive to the project and that I can trust you to work for the benefit of the community. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support No reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk ? contribs) 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Net positive for the project. Five Years 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Naerii 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    Support ? Definitely a net positive. Good user, the majority of edits are good or better. It's a yes from me. ? Switch to oppose. CycloneNimrod  ^Talk? 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

23. Support - My only concern is the lack of portal talk edits. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Weak Support Come on, that was funny. Keepscases (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - seems sane & not likely to baleet the mainpage - Alison ^? 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Net positive to the project. GlassCobra 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    #Support trust with tools. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)switch to neutral, see below, then switch to oppose... Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

27. Support Definitely trustable. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Everything I can find shows him to be a trustworthy editor who would make a trustworthy administrator. I don't think he'd abuse the tools, and I do think he'd use them for good. Vickser (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Support ? After reviewing his contributions, I think that (s)he will be a good admin. macy^talk 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - Looks like he knows what he is doing; deletion discussion is picky. I certainly don't expect him to be stomping thru the AfDs... King Pickle (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I don't think ou will abuse the tools. Reywas92^Talk 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    (changed to oppose) Per Keeper76. user:Everyme 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

32. Support Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong support--Per here. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - Seems to be a good editor. Why not?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 08:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Support- Trustworthy user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Support, per nominator's statement, and the fact that this editor easily meets my criteria for supporting an RfA. S. Dean Jameson 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
38. Support per nom and (long) answers to questions.--Koji?Dude ^(C) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. Meets my admin criteria of January 2005. jni (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Support: I have no concerns regarding Finalnight. seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    Support. Rudget (logs) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose.

41. Support See no reason not to. LittleMountain5 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. Some of the opposes have weight, but not enough to push me into their camp. Communication skills look good, overall attitude is great, I've had a bit of experience with the nominator. I trust this user. Tan ǀ 39 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Support per Tanthalas39. And candidate's sense of humour is a plus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. I am particularly pleased by the response to question 10. Axl (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
45. Strong support - WTHN?  Asenine  18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
46. Support -- per Tanthalas39. Good luck. --Cameron* 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Josh Hamilton (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
48. Support per whatever RMHED (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. I like the way he answered the questions and it looks like he'll be a good sysop. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. Good answers to questions, he seems to know what he's doing and have very good intentions. Nothing in the oppose section really concerns me. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Have no doubt that Finalnight will wield the mop in a thoughtful and considered fashion. nancy ^(talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic and cartoon characters named after people (cites the proposed WP:FICT as a "guideline" in an AfD that was overwhelmingly "keep") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuked the fridge (now this one was far from unanimous in its closure, but if you look at the article, it seems to go beyond a dictionary definition in the origin section). Because these examples are the only two experiences I had with the candidate and as they are only two experiences, I am saying "weak" in my stance. With that said, looking at [1] seems to show an overwhelming amount of deletes, with limited merges and keeps (yes, I know I personally argue to keep more than anything else as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, but I am not an admin and I think balance is important for admins), but I am not quite as knowledgeable about those topics (hence why I did not participate in the AfDs) and so defer on someone else if the stances were reasonable there. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Quick note about WP:FICT (no comment on the rest of the above opinion): This was a guideline for a long while and has only fairly recently been re-labeled as a proposal. In fact, this is the first time I'm aware of this change and it's fair to say that it's about as close to a guideline as a proposal ever gets. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Not only that, FICT has been intentionally downgraded from its guideline status by people with an agenda. user:Everyme 01:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose Most of this editors edits are via the use of tools. He has a total of 14 edits on Wikitalk pages, about 750 edits on user talk pages---almost all of which are via the us of Vandal Proof (or Huggle.) His edits to article talk page is a little better, but over 4/5th of his 260 edist are cosmetics (Eg results of AfD, changing the rating/class, etc.) In short, I see very little in the way of consensus building. He has very few edits demonstrating meaningful dialog---he only has 16 edits on his page and 11 on his nom's page and no more than 8 on any other user! Then there are his edits, it is rare that I see as blatant of deletionist as we have here. Finalnight does an excellent job with edit summaries, which makes looking at how he voted very easy. Unfortunately, I was surprised at how rarely he votes to keep (He does close edits as keeps, but that is the only way non-admins can close AfD's.) While he does give more than a "Per X" !vote at XfD's there weren't too many places where he appeared to revisit previous edits---eg it seemed like a lot of drive by !votes. (While he has some CSD's none jumped out at me as blatantly wrong and there weren't as many as I expected.) Most of his article edits are also template/cosmetic. While I see a lot of potential in this candidate, I just can't support right now. Then there is his choice in sports team... oh wait, we can't oppose for liking the vikings can we?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   I won't argue with any supporting or deleting opinions here as that is non-productive and disrespectful, but I will point out any factual innaccuracies that are brought up. You only counted my current talk page edits and ignored the fact that I archive my talk page and when adding in my archives, my total edits to my talk page are 43, not 16.--Finalnight (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   I was actually using this tool but looking at it again, I will concede the 43 edits to your talk page that you've made over a period of about 7 months... for an average of 6 edits per month. I suspect that your RfA will pass, but I like to see more constructive edits and more consensus building than I see in your edits.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Le Grand, Balloonman. The exchange with Nsk92 (see below oppose vote) has also shown me that I cannot place my trust in this user at all. SashaNein (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose On June 28, 2008 finalnight nominated an article for speeding as a hoax which was not in my opinion blatant and obvious (deleted edit). This concerns me greatly. His answer to Q7 did not allay my fears. Jon513 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Looks fairly blatant to me: A two-second Google search shows two hits. GlassCobra 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Not to mention the community consensus that had already decided that it was in fact, a hoax. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   It seems a bit odd to be pointing to a deleted diff as evidence against an RfA candidate, smacks a bit of secret evidence. This is an open vote of the entire community and using deleted evidence that the community cannot see is troublesome as you could say whatever you want about it and 99% of editors cannot see if what you are claiming is true.--Finalnight (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   "The action you have requested is limited to Administrators. Return to Main Page." Not very convincing to a non-admin like myself.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   I was thinking the same. If an admin would be so kind as to at least summarise what it was, it would be nice for any of us making up our minds about the votes, as well as to allow Finalnight to actually see what the problem is! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   The article was deleted at Afd at this link. The article attested that this (unknown/ungoogle-able) person was a billionaire, with lots of silly accolades. The speedy tag added by Finalnight was three days after the deletion discussion closed as delete, so really, it was a WP:CSD#G4 as well as a hoax. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   And actually (sorry, admin only for the next diff), Finalnight changed the speedy to be {{db-repost}} instead of {{db-vandalism}} himself. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for the info, Keeper. No concerns here on this count. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   I agree it was a hoax, I agree that google confirms this, and if I was voting in an AfD I would vote to delete, but a failed google test is not a criteria for speedy deletion. There are many areas where the internet simply does not have information on the topic and a google test would imply that it is a hoax. And it is easy for someone in good faith to assume something is a hoax and speedy delete it when it really is not. There was a AfD of the article 3 days before this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason B Burnett), which was closed early as a speedy. After FinalNight marked it a hoax, he later remarked it as G4 (reposted deleted material). In my opinion this was also a mistake as reposted speedy material does not qualify for G4, though one could make a strong argument that the deletion discussion, while closed early, was extensive enough to be consider an AfD. Jon513 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Not now. I looked through almost all of Finalnight's AfD contributions and, though keep !votes are sparse, he's been quite reasonable. (I take it he is applying this reasoning to his AfD participation, which is fine with me.) What concerns me is that I see no participation in XfD besides AfD -- no IfD, TfD, CfD, UCfD, SfD, RfD or MfD. Also no DRV. I don't care much about some of these, like SfD and TfD, but I'd at least like to see some participation in IfD and DRV (most/all of them would be ideal). Finalnight doesn't list these as areas of interest in his answer to Q1, but virtually all admins work in these areas at some point. I rarely cast these types of votes, but this seems like an extreme case. I would happily support with more rounded experience. ? xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   So, he said he's not going to work in those areas, has not worked in those areas, and you're opposing because he has not worked in those areas and has no interest in those areas? I've yet to make a single post at IFD either. If he had stated that he wants to close IFDs, and has yet to make a post in an IFD, I wouldn't have nominated him (or supported for that matter). Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   I have to agree with Keep here... while I am opposing, the rationale of this oppose doesn't make much sense to me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   I agree. This is an extremely nitpicky, pedantic and unnecessarily specific oppose I must say. It's like saying "candidate hasn't edited science related articles in the mainspace" Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Weak oppose first off, I must admit that I have spent less than 5 minutes writing this comment and have not not even read all your answers to the questions, but, non-admins are not allowed to close AFD discussions as no consensus as you did with the following diffs.[2] [3] -Ic?wedg? (?al?) 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Really? I have not seen that rule, if you could link it for me, I would greatly appreciate it, I was working off the guidelines in WP:DPR#NAC which doesn't say anything about no-consensus closures, only contentious or ambigous decisions. And in those two cases the original nomination rationale (which was actually a no-context csd rationale and thus improperly nominated) was no longer valid by the end of the 5 day discussion period and no one had !voted either. It was a common sense decision as it cleared backlog and caused no harm, no foul. Also, they were properly flagged as non-admin closures which according to the policy are subject to review and reversal if found improper which they so far have not been.--Finalnight (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   It is true the the guideline there does not say it explicitly but it does say that closures should be in accordance with consensus, how can a "no consensus" close have consensus? If you want verification that this is indeed the communities position see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2 comments O2, O3, O4, and O8. -Ic?wedg? (?al?) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Since when do four oppose votes make a consensus? What about all the opinions that say non admins can close AfDs? Opposing for him going in accordance with a much backed and long term guideline is silly. ?Giggy 08:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Uh... four oppose votes in a Request for Adminship does not make policy or consensus. Sorry, try again. seicer | talk | contribs 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   The correct action would have been to relist the AfD, in order to provide a more thorough debate. Regardless. The action taken is not expressly prohibited IceWedge, just not well thought out. Synergy 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Please answer me this Syn, Giggy and Seicer, how can "no consensus" descicon possibly be done with consensus? (a requirement for a NAC). It does not make sense. WP:DPR#NAC also says that "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator". A no consensus decision is quite definitely a close call. -Ic?wedg? (?al?) 05:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   How? A silent majority. Lets assume that both of those AfDs were relisted 2 times, and is still absent of debate. If no one decides to comment or !vote on an AfD, its default is keep. This is neither a close call, nor controversial (those parameters are reserved for debates which drew so much conversation that its difficult to tell), and is essentially the same as closing as keep per consensus. Yet, usually we do not close them this way, and it appears like your opposing view here is because Final closed as no consensus instead of a plain old Keep. Which is silly. Synergy 17:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose. This edit[4] rather worries me. If you are going to nominate something for an AfD, at least do a few google searches first. It is certainly not enough to simply "look at the structure of the article" before listing an article for an AfD. If an article can be improved, it should be improved, not deleted; this is one of the tenets of deletion policy. Also, the claim that in this case the article "did not have any reliable sources or claims to notability" at the time of nomination is incorrect. There was a list of academic publications of the subject that could have at least suggested that the subject is regarded as a significant academic expert (the current standard of WP:PROF). There was also a mention of the subject's article in relation to John McCain's presidential eligibility and the fact that the subject holds a named chair appointment at a major research university (the fact that in practice was always regarded as sufficient to pass WP:PROF in the past AfD discussions regarding academics). In view of the other AfD concerns raised here (oppose no. 1 by LGRdC and the preceding oppose by Icewedge), I do not believe that this candidate is ready to be trusted with the deletion button yet. Nsk92 (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to Strong Oppose per exchange below. Questioning my motives based on bad faith assumptions was bad enough, but refusing to let go and admit any mistakes demonstrates a judgement problem and an unsuitable attitude for an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Just a comment that this user !voted keep on the afd I posted right before posting this oppose. Also, I hope my adding your missing signature to your prior comments on that afd didn't trigger your opposition and keep !vote.--Finalnight (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, it is absolutely correct, I posted the above comment right after my !vote in the above mentioned AfD. And I came here to change my vote exactly because I saw your comment that I quoted above there. Regarding my keep vote and my opposition, I find the suggestion that I did that because you added signature to my prior comment in the AfD rather silly and a little offensive. We all forget to sign our comments once in a while and I think nothing of it when someone adds a sig in case I forgot to do it. Please give me more of the benefit of good faith here. I had been a regular participant in academic-related AfD's for the last 4 months or so, and I do know fairly well what the consensus in such debates has been in the past. If you look at the talk page of WP:PROF, you will see that I am working on a proposal for overhauling the guideline there. Nsk92 (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Believe me, there is no assumption of bad faith on your part, but I do see the need to note any relevant conflicts between an !voter and nominee especially one so immediate and relevant as the one you linked. Good luck with the PROF fixes, there are a lot of grey areas still in our notability guidelines across the project.--Finalnight (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Well, thank you for that. Nevertheless, you should not have made the silly suggestion that my keep AfD vote and my oppose here could have been triggered by your adding my missing signature for my earlier comment. And my main problem with your edit in that AfD still stands. I do not have a problem with deletionists (if you look at the record of my AfD votes, you will see that I myself vote delete rather more frequently than keep), but it is never enough to simply "look at the structure of the article" before nominating it for an AfD. You should always do some homework first and make a few quick google searches to see if the subject may in fact be notable, even if there are no references in the article. I am also rather surprised that you did not know that non-admins are not supposed to perform "no consensus" AfD closures. Icewedge is quite correct: while this point is not explicitly spelled out in the guideline (it probably should be), it is a conventional understanding of it and, in my view, follows from the plain reading of the guideline. The issue regularly comes up at AN/I and at RfAs, where people periodically get clobbered for doing no-consensus non-admin closures. (There is another one going right now, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2, see oppose no 4 by Wizardman there). Nsk92 (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Calling my comments silly twice in the same thread doesn't fill me with confidence that your oppose was not reactionary. Also, editors in the past have !voted in response perceived slights smaller than replacing a missing signature so it was a fair possibility to bring up.--Finalnight (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose. In nearly three years as a Wikipedian I have only opposed an RFA once before; I've supported nearly every time I vote, but not here. Finalnight's mainspace work is borderline on the light side, but what really raises red flags is how unreservedly he takes credit for other people's work. What did he really do for Star Trek:First Contact? Eight edits to the talk page. For The Tales of Beedle the Bard? Seven edits to the talk page. Actual mainspace work to either article doesn't even show a blip on the radar in his edit count report. Yet he answers question 2 I think I have a lot of really good contributions. I would point out my help with getting the Star Trek: First Contact and The Tales of Beedle the Bard articles to GA. Whoa, not good. Full stop. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   He said he "helped with getting Article A and Article B to GA status". He didn't say he wrote them. He said he helped them. The talk page edits are actually quite thorough, and I'm assuming the writers found them to be helpful. I think you are overreading and overreacting, personally. To say someone reviewing an article to get it to GA is "Whoa, not good. Full stop" is a titch inflammatory, almost as much as "I have only opposed an RFA once before" (as if that gives it more weight somehow?). Keeper ǀ 76 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Here are some links for Star Trek: First Contact, The Tales of Beedle the Bard, more Bard, and and Reagan in case they got buried in my contribs--Finalnight (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Look, my standards for the triple crown are pretty generous, but this doesn't even nearly come close. I make ten inline citatons the minimum precisely as a safeguard against people claiming GA or FA credit for a few minor copyedits or a few comments to the talk page; yet that's the first thing this person refers to when discussing his own article plaudits. Either he doesn't know how much work real article building is, in which case he's out of touch and not ready; or else he realizes how much effort it really takes and wants credit anyway, in which case I'm even more concerned. No thanks. Durova^Charge! 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for clarifying. Finalnight did not say in his answer to Question two that he wrote the articles. He said he helped get them to GA. By reviewing them. Which is helpful. He said he helped. (His first diff their above your post does show a rather hefty single diff rewrite of plot as well, but whatever.) Which is also helpful. We'll hafta agree to disagree. Keeper ǀ 76 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   I don't know which is more disturbing; answering a question that way in the first place or excusing it afterward. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Well thank you kindly for that "truce". Keeper ǀ 76 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Keeper, 8.9% of this candidate's total edit count are posts to your own user talk page. Could it be possible that you're too close to evaluate this objectively? Durova^Charge! 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Apologies for the error; miscounted someone else's stats on that. Durova^Charge! 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   It's possible, but the implications in your post are not appreciated nonetheless. It's also quite possible that this is an editor that I've been privileged to work with in the past and find to be a good administrative candidate that is getting an overly dramatic and inflammatory oppose from an otherwise well respected longtime Wikipedian such as yourself. I would offer the same defense to any other candidate, regardless of my position as nominator/supporter/or opposer. Of those 8.9%, how many of them were simply a back and forth to prepare the RFA template the other day? (I don't use email for anything Wikipedia related, don't have it enabled). Keeper ǀ 76 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Not so sure about the math on that one. He's only got 10 edits to user talk:keeper76 - barely reaches talk page stalker status (are you sure you're not looking at the rank?). ?xeno (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose - per the frightening points Durova has brought up. If there is one thing that I really do not like, it is claiming credit for something one did not do. Finalnight could not have helped bring those articles to GA just by editing the talk page a few times. The credit goes fully to the ones who actually editing the article. Also for failure to answer question 10. Artichoker[talk] 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose unimpressed with exchange with Nsk92 (the exchange more than the original diff, the diff wasn't good, the exchange was worse). Then Durova's points tip me over to oppose (Keeper76's exchange with Durova isn't helping, but I'm not holding Finalnight responsible for Keeper's actions). The talk page contribution are more substantive than the typical talk page matter... but the sum leaves me feeling that I must oppose this time. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    Pete, my apologies, I just posted there again, and then read this, and I'm removing myself from this discussion as to not distract from the candidate (I'm "doing" one of my own pet peeves by overposting). I appreciate you (and anyone else) not holding my belligerence against the candidate. My apologies to Finalnight as well. Unwatchlisting, please flame me on my talkpage if you wish :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose per the weak article-writing experience and the comments made by Durova and Pete.Hurd. Epbr123 (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per the weak article-writing experience and the comments made by Durova and Pete.Hurd. Copy and Paste is fun :) NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose: By Keeper's description alone it is evident he is a fanboy. He made Finalnight sound like a ninja while simply describing the things every wikipedian does (make edits without saying I MADE AN EDIT LULZ!!1!). Also, almost every support simply says 'I find no reason to oppose', one even openly admits 'I've never interacted with him ... but I trust him completely'. So would you guys support the accountless IP addresses for adminship too?
    but seriously, claiming other peoples work as your own is really low; using their work to give yourself undeserved admin tools - down right rotten. There is nothing wrong with nominating your friends, Keeper, but be open about it - it makes it look like you have something to hide. I oppose because of the opposing points made by other users above, and the failure of Finalnight to address them acceptably.--Carbonrodney (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Pete.Hurd. He said it before I could. ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunt Entropy (talk ? contribs) 05:15, 17 July 2008
15. Change from support per Durova. user:Everyme 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose, essentially per Nsk92 and the following testy exchange. This isn't what I expect a potential admin candidate to ever say. "I saw an article that did not have any reliable sources or claims to notability and nominated it. I didn't even notice what the subject of the article is talking about, I just look at the structure of the article and apply the community guidelines to it." You think so seriously? Sorry, but you do not seem to understand what AfD is about. I'm afraid I cannot trust you with the delete button at this time. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Per Durova. Daniel (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose, regretfully. I feel that at this current moment in time that the candidate has not fully expressed the true credentials he ought to have before running at an RfA. Project & Project-talk (P & PT) space edits are rather low and as some point out this could infact demonstrate a lack of knowledge in particular areas. Candidates should have at least 1000-1100 edits to the (P & PT) areas. I am thoroughly dismayed by the apparent lack of understanding of the AfD process as brought up by PeaceNT above, with yet another oppose by Durova to be considered. Overall, I should think you know yourself this RfA will be unsuccessful (as shown in recent edits to the nominator's talk page) and hopefully with that in mind you will relinquish any negatives here and carry-on demonstrating your merits to a higher standard. Rudget (logs) 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Per Durova and PeaceNT. Sorry, Finalnight, I'm sure you are a good guy and will make a fine administrator at some point. Avruch ^T 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Per Durova. east.718 at 15:57, July 17, 2008
21. Oppose per most of the above. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Switch to oppose per Durova. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. On the fence here. I have reviewed FN's edit history, and I see an intelligent, capable, and ethical editor. Still, the evidence presented in the first oppose disturbs me greatly. One of the greatest threats to our encyclopedia is by-the-book OR hawks who seek to outlaw common sense. Not sure what to think on this one. Mr. IP (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Everything looks pretty good for the most part, but, in my view, 6.5 months of having a named user account on WP is too short a period of time to be applying for adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Switching to Oppose. Nsk92 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   That's over 450 edits a month, which is higher than many editors. RfA should be based on the candidates knowledge of policy and quality of edits, not length on WP.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   It takes both time and edits for someone to get to know WP well enough to be ready to become an admin. If someone does 50,000 edits in a month, I would not vote for them based on that. Sorry, but I can't support anyone's RfA who has not been a WP user for at least a year. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Per lazy immediatism in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel J. Chin. I would prefer that those with the power to delete the work of others, block contributors and protect articles from editing would show diligence and consideration in their actions. Nominating for deletion an article others spent time and effort building without bothering to research the topic or improve the article first leads me to doubt whether Finalnight would show those attributes as an administrator. Of course, this is just one out of thousands of edits, and everyone makes mistakes, but the point is an important one nonetheless. Skomorokh 13:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Those of us with the "power to delete the work of others" already have and will continue to make similar mistakes all the time. Even this week :-) The key is to me that I feel very strongly that Finalnight has the temperament and clue to admit the mistakes and move on without drama. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Your views on the matter were hardly in doubt, and regardless of my respect for the administrative caste, you can't seriously expect an appeal to authority to sway me. Regards, Skomorokh 11:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Switched to negative leaning neutral, exchange with Nsk92 in oppose section turned me off. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC) switching again to oppose Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral : I am not a big fan of huge edit counts but the candidate's lack of considerable main space edits worries me whether he could really handle the AFD closures properly. Otherwise a good wikipedian with good attitude and definitely promising. I wont oppose because it wont be unfair to him , for a person of great potential of becoming a good admin. Frankly I like this very much. Non admins with WP:ACC and Rollback rights are usually trustworthy, I believe. No reasons to think that he will misuse the 'power buttons' intentionally. Btw Best wishes... Looks like this RFA is still likely to pass :) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Some of the items brought up by the opposers are a bit concerning, but not enough to oppose. I also don't appreciate the candidate badgering (for lack of better word choice) many of the opposers. Useight (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2008 (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.