Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neurolysis

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

Neurolysis

Final (87/34/7); ended 20:01, 09 April 2009 — Withdrawn by candidate

Nomination

Neurolysis (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, may I present for your consideration Neurolysis. Neuro is a prolific and valuable editor in many areas of Wikipedia. Call in now and you'll get over 25,000 edits, tons of wiki-gnoming, extensive vandal fighting, three featured lists, bot writing, NPP, ANI, AN, UAA, RPP, AFD, account creation, template work, and help desk experience. I've personally witnessed his ability to competently handle whatever strange problem comes up, be it resolving a conflict amicably or creating scripts to automate needed tasks. While Neuro is a skilled content creator, he's also one of those utter freaks that rejoices in thankless, arduous maintenance tasks - a perfect storm/deadly cocktail of adminship.

A relevant piece of Neuro's story is the personal growth he has undergone in his work here. Until the beginning of October 2008, Neuro worked under the username Asenine. In this account, Neuro made many positive contributions and had a clean block record, but like many of us found that he was developing an on-wiki persona that was not himself. He started to receive criticism over his manner towards others - especially accusations that he was not assuming good faith and being overly bureaucratic. Rather than dismissing these criticisms and blaming those that raised them, Neuro self-reflected and recognized that these evaluations carried weight. In response, he dropped this username and began Neurolysis, in which he addressed the previous concerns and concentrated on becoming a valuable and courteous editor. That is the editor that I'm presenting for your consideration now. (Neuro's account of these events is here.) FlyingToaster 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and would like to thank FlyingToaster for the kind words. If I may, I will say a little bit here.

My last RfA was not easy to endure for me. It meant embracing that I had been acting in a way which I do and even then did resent. I guess User:Neurolysis/Apology says most of it, but the gist of it is that I am sincerely sorry for all of the wrongs which I committed, all the mistakes I made, and the malicious things I did. I regret ever doing them, and apologise to anyone who was offended by my actions whilst operating under that handle. I am, however, glad that I had a chance to go through the RfA process that second time — it gave me a strong sense of guilt for my actions, and most importantly a will to actively change my ways and rectify the severe issues listed therein. My name change was a quick decision to get away from something which I by now so resented, and attempt to rectify them whilst starting afresh. I did tell a few people who I was at the time, but I did not publicly admit that the two accounts were indeed one and the same until December of last year. My motivation behind changing username was that I hoped that I could build enough of a base to demonstrate that I was sincere and serious about changing my ways. I hope that my actions indicate that I have changed for the better, and that six months is enough time to demonstrate such a change. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:45, 6 April 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mostly blocking inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA, deleting blatantly inappropriate pages at WP:CSD, closing discussions which demonstrate an obvious consensus for a particular action (say, SNOW deletes and keeps after 2/3 days) at WP:AFD, issuing rollback to trustworthy users who have interest in the tool at WP:PERM, and generally helping out at WP:AN, and WP:AN/I. One area I would almost certainly stay well away from would be WP:RFPP, or at least I would stay away from it until I felt confident working there. I guess the best way to answer this question is simply by saying "a bit of everything". I have a habit of enjoying working at certain areas for periods of time, and then stopping there and going somewhere else for a while, and then returning later — it helps keep my work here enjoyable, refreshing, and generally rewarding; not least in that it broadens my knowledge in areas which I might not regularly visit or contribute to otherwise. For a few months now I have been doing new image patrol with the bots. If given the bit, I plan to work deleting images which need to be deleted, but not deleting those which I can fix myself. I would stay away from blocking users until I felt comfortable doing so, which could be a little or a long time — this goes for all but blatantly disruptive users, who I would have no problem issuing blocks to if necessary. I would also help out users requesting {{adminhelp}}.

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

A: Define 'contributions', really. If you mean article work and content creation, I particularly enjoyed and am proud of my work on featured lists, I have three - Hughes Medal, Gabor Medal, Davy Medal, and a few more coming up soon. For a long time I stayed out of content creation in general — mostly because I enjoyed and enjoy repetitive maintenance work, and didn't see the need to venture into other areas. However, after a while I found that I was doing a lot of maintenance work on mainspace articles, which gradually got me into wanting to work on content. After Ironholds prodded me about whether I wished to work alongside him getting some articles to featured list status, I realised that my love for technical jobs and mindlessly repetitive tasks could equate to content work with lists and tables. Aside from mainspace work, some of my best contributions have came about through helping out at WP:HD, WP:NCHP, and WP:RD/C (although I should probably contribute to those more often -- I have not been very active at them as of late). I also enjoy mindless technical jobs, and perform them a good bit (although more often than not for my own leisure, I do love a good puzzler).

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 tend to disengage from situations before anything I would consider to be reminiscent of a 'conflict' occurs, and the same for stress, really. If I get stressed, I go and get a coffee, listen to some music, and generally check that I am in a good state of mind and make sure I am calm before proceeding. One of the benefits of an online encyclopaedia like Wikipedia is that if I am getting worked up or a little annoyed, I don't have to stick around. I can go and take a break whenever I like, since we are all volunteers -- that is, I see absolutely no need to get in a destructive conflict about things here, because unlike in a real world situation where it is very easy to get drawn into a dispute and not want to leave it until you have demonstrated all of your points and your opponent has conceded that they were wrong, Wikipedia is accessible through the medium of the internet — and there is plenty for me to go and do to take my mind off of the issue or issues at hand. If I were to get into a conflict with someone about my edits, I would discuss it with them first before continuing further, and if that avenue proved to be unsuccessful I would re-evaluate the situation, more than likely getting a second opinion from another user that I trust to tell me what they actually think about the situation at hand as opposed to merely what I am wanting to hear. If a group of users were to tell me that I was in the wrong, I would concede that such a thing was so and proceed to move on.

Optional Q. from Protonk (talk)

4 Why did you come back? This is open ended, so you can feel free to answer in whatever manner makes you feel comfortable. I also want to make clear that I don't mean this in the snarky "Why did you flare out just to reappear" sense. I mean literally what brought you back to the project? Do you think, in retrospect, that your leaving was permanent (at the time)? That sort of thing.

A: I rejoined only a few hours after my departure. I think there was one point at which the leaving was permanent, but I think that point was short lived. Being told by an overwhelming majority that I was what I so resented at first had the effect of being particularly upsetting. It is still upsetting to remember what I was like. It also, however, kicked some sense into me. After a few hours I felt I could turn myself around, stop acting the way I did, and I did not feel that I would lapse into old habits again. As such, I felt no need to stay away. My retirement was not so well thought out, not least in the fact that it only existed for an incredibly short period of time.

Optional questions from Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

5. What is the difference between a block and a ban? In your own words, please, no cut-and-pasting.

A. A block is a technical restraint on editing, whether it be on an account, an individual IP, or a range IP (rangeblock). A ban is a broader term — if we are talking about a straight out ban, a ban is a block which is not technically enforced (although it is issued in conjunction with a block). A ban also straight out allows reversions of all of a banned users contributions which were made whilst they were banned. A banned user is someone whose contributions are straight out considered to be unwanted, whereas a block is a preventative measure (it does not imply good or bad faith). A topic ban is something slightly different, that is, there is no technical restraint placed on the editor, there is, however, a disallowance to edit in a particular manner, at a particular place, or in a particular scenario.

6. This is normally Xeno's RfA question, but I like it too. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. IP editors are, in general, not blocked indefinitely, so blocking the user "for life" is pretty much out of the question. I think unblocking after such a spree would not only be incorrect (there is a level of AGF'ing I am willing to do, but that was pretty blatant vandalism, and personal attacks), but also unnecessary. If the user has truly learnt from and understood why their actions were wrong, then hopefully they will also understand why the block was imposed. We have a lot of IPs and users that use WP:BROTHER sort of remarks to try and get around sockpuppetry, and this is somewhat similar. The user is saying one thing, whilst they have been actively demonstrating the other. In this case, I would discuss the issue with another administrator, and see what we both thought. That might be seen as sitting on the fence, but these questions are here to ask me what I would do, not what people want to hear. I realise this might need some elaboration, if it does, please just ask away. :)

7. How do you feel that you have improved since your last RfA?

A. In just about every way, I hope. Back then I acted in a fashion which I realise was unacceptable, and unjustifiable. I guess my main improvement has been in my attitude. I do my best to assume good faith, help people out, and generally I have tried to turn my back on my previous actions. If we want to talk content, see Q2. I was sorely lacking in article work last time around (although that wasn't really brought up due to the fact that there were more serious issues), but this time I have three FLs. Admittedly FLs aren't as highly thought of as FAs, but I enjoy doing them, and they are good, solid mainspace work.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I believe there is a problem, yes. That said, I don't really know what sort of thing you want me to comment on here. I've been writing answers and then looking back at the question and realising it wasn't really what you said at all. Assuming you didn't want as much of a short answer to this as I have provided, could you rephrase?

Well, the second part of the question is open to interpretation. How you interpret it is telling. That you can't interpret it at all... I don't know. I didn't see that coming. If I explain it, it sort of kills it for future use.

You see, my issue is that I have never tended to get too involved in BLP issues, so I don't have too much to say other than I think there is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with.

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I don't (and didn't) support the trial of FlaggedRevs when it came around. I believe any sort of straight out blanket flagging or semi-protection for all BLPs may be over the top. It is my belief that if we wish to stop BLP issues in their tracks, we must influence a change in editing, not only a change in the software. IP editors are not the only ones causing issues with BLPs, and whilst I concur that Flagged Revisions or semi-protection would no doubt have an effect, I feel that the positives would fail to negate the negatives if we were to implement FlaggedRevs on BLPs — that is, I feel they undermine our ethos, and would need a demonstration that they had a significant effect before supporting them, and I don't believe that semi-protection should be applied in such a liberal way. Not least, I also oppose them because I believe that flagged protection and patrolled revisions would be the best way to go about combating this sort of problem in a fashion which still conforms to our core values. FP/PR promotes more editing, not less, and it also promotes review of those edits as opposed to straight out limitation. So, in summary:

1. No

2. Yes

3.

• Global protection for BLPs? No.
• More liberal use? Yes.

8c. For BLP AFDs, closing as "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Assuming the argument is that if we are unsure of the notability of the subject it would be better to simply delete the page on them, my views are that that AfD would be the wrong venue to apply such a thing to. I don't think either is 'better', I think they both have their pros and cons, but I also don't think that applying such a modifier to AfD would be the right way to go. I think we need to work out something else outside of AfD.

Request for clarification: Can you explain what ideas you have for "work something else outside of AfD"?

Actually, what I was thinking of before is too flawed to work (due to bias based on opinions based on all BLPs, not just ones being discussed), on second thought. I'll work out a more cogent answer in a bit.

8d. For BLP AFDs where the subject has weighed in to request that their article be deleted, how much consideration, if any, do you give to that request?

A: This question is a difficult one to answer. If Bill Gates were to come along and request that his page was deleted, I'm sure that he would not succeed (or at least, it would almost certainly not happen willingly on our part). If someone much less notable than he came along and requested that their article was deleted, I would first want to see why such a thing should occur. Deletion does not stop recreation of an article, so actual creation cannot be prevented without salting (which is unlikely to occur), and as such the only things which deletion serves to do is to keep IP editors from creating an article on them (because they can't create pages), and deter people from adding content (because they would have to start from scratch, a daunting concept to a lot of new users, or users that are aware that they are unfamiliar with our policies). I guess my thoughts on the matter are this — if there is an understandable, cogent, and reasonable argument provided for deletion by the subject, it should probably be deleted. I would also argue that a reasonable request for deletion from the subject at an AfD (or through some other method whilst an AfD was ongoing) should tip a no consensus close to default to delete, too.

Additional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

9. Would you speedy delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag?

A: That would depend. If the article was blatantly unwanted (such as an attack page), I would not hesitate to delete it. If the article was simply not asserting notability, I would hold off. I guess {{underconstruction}} just says 'I am working on this', but that tends to not mean anything for pages with no salvageable content whatsoever.

Optional questions from IMatthew

10. What is your view on inactive administrators? Do you think they should have their bit removed? If so, should they be able to get the flag back by requesting it from a crat, or going through RfA again?

A. Let me put it this way — administratorship should not be 'for life', and it should not be as permanent as it is at current. I don't think the correct motive for removing the bit from older accounts should be "you must make x edits per y or your bit will be removed", but I do concur that they present an unnecessary security risk, and don't really see a problem with it on that ground. I would also, therefore, support the reinstatement of the tools upon request to a 'crat (on a case by case basis, of course). I guess it depends on the history of the user at hand.

11. Do you believe that RfA candidates should have experience at AN or ANI before becoming an administrator? If the candidate wants the tools for the sole purpose of working at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, should they still have experience at AN/ANI?

A. Again, sorry not having a direct answer, but I think it is a case by case thing. Some users are particularly adept at learning things quickly and have an amount of clue that would sway me against worry for potential issues regarding where they wanted to work, and where they had not worked previously. That said, there are occasions where I would have hoped for diversification of contributions in projectspace from pre-RfA from certain users. It is true that the bit does not come in parts, and many candidates branch out into other areas after succeeding in their bid, so really candidates should demonstrate a good knowledge of as many administrative areas as possible when applying. I do not, however, believe that where a candidate has/has not worked should have a critical impact on their request for the tools — work does not necessarily indicate understanding, and lack of work does not necessarily indicate the lack thereof. So, in summary, it is nice to see diverse contributions indicating (but not demonstrating) knowledge of policies through contributions as various administrative areas of Wikipedia, but I don't believe it is the most crucial thing at an RfA.

12. This is one of your typical questions with a slight twist: What is more important, consensus or verifiability, if the consensus was made by the Arbitration Committee?

A. Verifiability, in both cases.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

13a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: It wouldn't be that simple. Firstly, I would wait about an hour, and if no further edits had been made to improve (or construct) the page, I would contact the user. If, after 24 hours, they did not respond, and I could not locate any sources indicating a possibility of notability, I would delete, and leave the user a message to contact me if they wished to have the page restored to their userspace. (I will leave a message for every user who submits a page that I delete under a CSD criterion which is related to notability, regardless of if a {{underconstruction}} tag is present.)

13b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Yes. I would then contact the editor after an hour and ask what their plans were. If they did not respond, and I was not able to find sources hinting at notability to start the page myself, I would delete it.

13c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: It might break the spirit of 3RR, but not the letter. 3RR actually permits a maximum of three reverts, that is, it is not a third revert that breaks the letter, it is the fourth. It would take Editor1 three more additions to break the letter of 3RR (the initial addition is not a reversion), and it would take Editor2 two more. As for the Editor3 question, it would depend on whether the editor was acting on the instruction of Editor2.

13d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: I'm not sure I completely understand this question, but I will have a shot at answering it regardless. My interpretation of consensus is the same in both circumstances, that is, consensus is not built upon the numbers of people endorsing or censuring a particular action or event. Article writing does, however, lend itself to being done on the terms of the majority as opposed the terms which are indicated by consensus, not least due to rigid limits (at least to the letter) like 3RR. That shouldn't occur, but it does.

Questions from Seddon

14 What sensible arguments do you look for when judging concensus in an afd?

A: Well, exactly that, sensible arguments. The arguments that hold the most weight, of course, are those that are based upon a policy or generally accepted guideline. There have been a few cases in which I have advocated the use of IAR keeps — I seem to remember that I !voted that way in the deletion discussion for Futaba Channel.

15 If you find an virilent vandal account cannot be blocked due to a software glitch, what avenues can be explored to try to deal with the problem?

A: How exactly is the account virulent?

16 Write a sentance with less than 17 words summing yourself up as an admin?

A: Easing myself in slowly. (Everyone loves arbitrary values, I set mine at 4 :D)

Optional question from Quadell

17. Tell us about a time (under this account) when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. I guess the best example of this (although I would dispute that 'consensus' existed, although Jimbo seemed to think it did) would be the Flagged Revisions trial proposal. I was a vocal opposer of Flagged Revisions, as I believed (and believe) that they violate the core structure of our ethos. When Jimbo requested that Brion implement them, I was a little surprised at the suggestion that the results of the discussion indicated a consensus one way or the other. Whilst I was a little annoyed at the fact that Jimbo had stated that their implementation would go ahead, I also saw (and see) the benefits that Flagged Revisions could bring to the project, especially in areas such as BLPs. Put it this way — whilst I opposed them, I would not be particularly irritated if we were to give them a try. I guess my !vote was indicative of a preference as opposed to a rigid stance.

The whole idea of consensus is to get an idea of what the community wants. As such, when consensus goes against my preferred outcome, I accept it — there are more people here than just me — consensus going against my preferred outcome is not a problem. It simply indicates that I am probably wrong in my convictions.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Asenine
• Requests for adminship/Asenine 2

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

---

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

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 12:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. FlyingToaster 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Had it watchlisted for some reason support (deja vu!) - clueful editor. –xeno (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Would-have-nominated-Support. Per Xeno ;-) SoWhy 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. I must say that I'm unpersuaded by the concerns in the oppose section thus far. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   My intention wasn't to persuade anybody, just letting you know where I stand.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I know, but the purpose of a rationale is to let others know your thoughts. Otherwise it'd be a straight vote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm, perhaps I misunderstood at first. Sorry, nevermind. ;)  iMatthew :  Chat  20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Support I believe the nomination statement was sincere. And while I am not a fan of extracting apologies, I think it was probably necessary. I think Neuro/Asenine will be a net positive as an admin. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Yup, been around the block, as it were, i see no reason the mop will cause brain fail. --GedUK  20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support on the condition he stops making me hip-hop mixtapes, rapping on WP and doesn't shave HAGGER? into my head while I sleep. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   As for the latter: Mmmhh...beans *off to buy a shaver* SoWhy 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Have I coined WP:SHAVE?. WilliamH (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   One might want to create that page as something similar to WP:WTHN: "The fact that they will not shave HAGGER? into someone's head while they sleep is a reason to support a user running for adminship..." SoWhy 09:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Support I trust this user not to abuse the tools and I hate IRC DRAMA. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hopefully the new op guidelines will go some way to combat drama on IRC, Martin drafted them a few days ago. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

9. per Ironholds. Keegan^talk 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
10. I opposed Neurolysis' last RfA based on some behavioral concerns. However, in the time since that RfA I have kept an eye on him, and I think he's done a great job in improving himself since then. He experienced with policy, is friendly, gives good input and does good work wherever he participates, and is a helpful editor overall. I am pleased to support this nomination after opposing the last one. Acalamari 20:39, 6 April 2009
11. Support? Hell yeah! Inferno :  Chat  20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
12. A very approachable and helpful user, Neuro will do well with the tools.  GARDEN  20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Neurolysis has been very active in a wide range of areas across Wikipedia and is very trustworthy. In my opinion, he has improved greatly in the last six months since his last RfA and would be very helpful as an administrator. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I can work with him. MBisanz ^talk 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I like what I've seen, & I think he'll be okay (okay meaning not abusing the tools). hmwithτ 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I've seen neurolysis around, and all indications are that he'll be a great admin. I actually thought he was an admin already. Best of luck. Timmeh! 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Been waiting for this one. Solid, personable, and he cares. I'll be happy to look at Wisdom's diffs or anyone else's diffs, but it will have to be pretty bad for me to switch teams. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, and Support strongly I might add. While his tremendous efforts to get me clued in and up to speed during my fist days at WP may be a personal feeling, rather than objective evidence, I can also state with clear conscience that Neurolysis does have a clue, will benefit the community, and the tools would only further enhance his ability to maintain, sort, and protect the project. (sorry for the run on sentence - I got carried away) — Ched :  ?  21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Too many administrators currently. No. Oppose - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. No! Hello, I would like to place an order... oh sorry, wrong queue. NO!!! Wait, I got it! Very strong support - I've seen Neuro around, and have seen nothing but good from him. A hard worker, civil, kind and helpful; if not him, then who? --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    The sarcasm isn't really constructive. Just sayin'. Townlake (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Just joking around with regards to the references. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

20. Yarr! Neuro is an excellent editor, polite, mature, and clued-up. Excellent administrator candidate, I keep having to remind myself that he isn't one. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support Give him the tools already! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Switch to neutral.

    Support Neurolysis is a tremendous contributor to the community who would clearly use the tools responsibly. Took all my advice to heart in the editor review he recently conducted, even the stuff he could have bristled at. Neurolysis seemingly always defaults to assuming good faith absent a good reason to believe otherwise. I'm proud and happy to support. Townlake (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Didn't know about the blog comments. They remind me of the old account. Rethinking.

21. Support No bad interactions, only good ones. America69 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Reiterating support. The blog thing, especially the attack on giano, is unfortunate but I believe the neuro genuinely regrets it. It is also worth noting that he commented under his own wikipedia monicker. I continue to believe that he'll make an excellent admin. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support About time. Whatever his past, neuro is a clued in editor who usually (thankfully not always!) makes sense. With all the odd jobs he's been doing around wikipedia he's already a janitor - about time someone handed him a mop! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Meh Mr.Z-man 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

23. Strong support --Giants27 ^T/C 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support You've been around and that's what counts. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Definitely trustworthy. rootology (C)(T) 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support May the force be with you, young Jedi. ^_^. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Strong support, will make the kind of administrator of which we really need more. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support — Jake Wartenberg 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support -download | sign! 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support: Per above. South Bay (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Been expecting this rfa for awhile - would have nominated you myself eventually. Neurolysis has much experience in many aspects of the project, a high level of approachability, and will definitely not abuse sysop rights. - Fastily (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Neuro has always been able and willing to help me when I've had problems and has always been calm during a crisis. I think he would make a great administrator. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Been waiting for this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Aye - probably the RfA that I've had to think the least about (ooh, must've been about five seconds) recently. Black Kite 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Moved to neutral, then to oppose. Black Kite 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

36. Duh - won't abuse the tools. Donnez le mop, toute de suite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by roux (talk • contribs)
37. Secret ^account 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Can be trusted with the bit. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. I am amazed by how much growth Neurolysis has shown from his past as a rather disagreeable character to someone with whom it is a pleasure to work with. I am certain that Neurolysis will make an excellent admin. bibliomaniac15 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Too tallToo young Majorly talk 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
41. I've seen this request coming for quite some time now. There was a time when I had already thought Neuro to be an administrator, and then I had happened upon his logs and noticed he wasn't. I wondered, "why? He'd be a wonderful admin." I have seen Neuro's name around a lot lately and have generally had a positive impression of him — he is always willing to assume good faith when there isn't especially strong evidence of bad faith, and he admits and learns from his past mistakes. He is very active in a lot of administrator-heavy areas of the project, and is very thoughtful and patient when it comes to dealing with newcomers who don't understand Wikipedia's processes quite yet. We need more administrators with these traits, and we need more highly active admins. That said, I feel it would be against Neuro's wishes for somebody to not be honest and forth-right with him, and I will not lie; I have at times been concerned by Neuro's handling of certain situations. There are times when Neuro makes judgmental mistakes (and he knows this, he's not afraid of owning up to his mistakes), and on occasion I find he is a tad too willing to give obviously bad-faith editors more chances than they should have. I'm not suggesting that he AGF less often, but I just wanted to offer a reminder that sometimes, rules can be ignored if it's better to do so. I also took the liberty to check his prior RfA and found that there were significant concerns at the time, just around six months ago. But simply looking at his contributions as of late, it is obvious he has come a long way since that time. He has matured a great deal ever since he first came here, and those issues are pretty much a faded memory now. It is obvious that Neuro has been working to become an administrator for some time now (not that it was his only Wikipedia goal, but it is still evident that Neuro wanted to be somebody others would turn to for help) and I cannot find any reason why not to give the mop to somebody who is honest, considerate, thoughtful, and open-minded. In short, I trust Neurolysis fully. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I've had good interactions with this user and I think he'll be a good admin. Camw (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
43. My impression of neuro has always been that he is an extremely civil and respectful editor; just about every interaction I've had with him has involved neuro keeping everyone civil (I have sometimes been on the receiving end of that). I don't know anything about neuro's past, before I was a Wikipedian, but the neuro of the present certainly commands my respect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support No concerns. Wronkiew (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Weak Support. Not the perfect history, but a very improved Wikipedian. Useight (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Great editor, very helpful. Per all the above. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Through my lengthy interactions with Neuro through anti-vandalism, FPC, and other places, I have always had good experiences. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support- I don't see any reason to deny this user the mop. Neuro has always struck me as level-headed and intelligent, and will probably be responsible with the tools. Reyk _YO! 01:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support miranda 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. I wondered a few days why you hadn't run for adminship. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - I've seen good work from this user and believe he would make a fine and trustworthy administrator. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support- it's about friggin' time. Neuro is quite prolific and I've had positive interactions with him. Valley2city^‽ 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support No reason not to. Seen good stuff so far.  Marlith (Talk)  03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support. He's not an admin? Wizardman 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support thought he was an admin, a crat, a CU, an oversiter, an ArbCom member, a Steward, a Founder, etc, already. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Keep up the good work. Steven Walling (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Skinny87 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Has clue, will travel. WilliamH (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - I don't generally get involved in these Admin elections (mostly because I just don't care about Admins), but I've seen some of his anti-vandalism work and I was impressed enough to have to speak up. He has my support for his Admin bid. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support Any off-wiki behaviour, unless it is atrocious, doesn't bother me. Neuro is a responsible editor and, as an administrator, would act with probity. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Switching to neutral. ∗ \ / (⁂) 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

60. Yes - honestly per Wizardman, also per WilliamH. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Hell yes (it gets old just saying "support" all the time, and well, the one above me is a "yes," so...) per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as the candidate has never been blocked, rescues articles from deletion and contributes to featured articles per User:Neurolysis#Contributions, has received numerous barnstars seen at User:Neurolysis#Barnstars, and makes thoughtful arguments in AfDs (see [1] and [2]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong Support Definitely, I was also under the impression that Neuro was already an admin.--Res2216firestar 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
63. Support After what has been already said, I do not think there is more to add to the conversation. Lucifer (Talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Support One does not have to be an admin to be an admin, I think Neuro demonstrates that mentatility. I have not reviewed his edits, but the very fact that I thought he was already an admin, tells me that he is ready. That being said, there have been times where I thought he was a little , I don't know the word I'm looking for, brash? Hasty? I can't put my finger on it... but while I thought he was an admin, I've felt that he had some room to grow as one. I'll try to elaborate on that more if I can verbalize my concern. But I've always said, the best way to become an admin, is to be an admin.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Edit moving to oppose---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    GlassCobra below used the word I was looking for... there are times where (right or wrong) I feel that Neuro can be a little drama prone, not enough to oppose, but enough so that I have to mention it here.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

64. User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support I give him the best support ever. --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜STALK!!!} 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Good lord, Mixwell, somebody's gonna fry you for that ridiculously long signature... and I'll be the one to start that... 4 lines that I would have to wade through if it weren't for WikiEd's highlighting features... Until It Sleeps ^{Editor Review} 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

65. Yup. Without a doubt. And, er, what happens on irc, stays on irc. :) Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Being Neuro's nom for his Last RfA, I can say that my view has not changed. Neuro is a very friendly, capable user, and will go good with the tools. Xclamation point 02:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose, sorry. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support --Caspian blue 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Switched to Oppose.--Caspian blue 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

67. Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
68. User is a good one. He's mean to me on IRC, but well, I can overlook that. Haha. the_undertow ^talk 10:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - A good candidate for the job, already doing a lot of useful admin-like work, and I've found him to have a good demeanor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
70. About time support. Why isn't this user an admin already? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Looking at the evidence bish has posted below, I've reconsidered my support here, and I'm still strongly supporting this user for adminship. AFAIK this user has a belly button, so should be allowed to screw up. Why should we crucify him for one mistake? Besides, the crucifixion should be tomorrow! Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

71. Support This user spends a lot of time trying to do helpful things around the project. I feel he his a pretty good candidate, and I can find no reason to think he would abuse the tools. Landon1980 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support, per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - I was not aware of this user's previous history, but I've seen some of his recent comments in the admin forums, and he always appeared to be a sensible person. Not convinced by the Oppose arguments. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support I can't see any reason worth opposing for. ThemFromSpace 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Never had a negative impression of the guy, and seen him around plenty. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support →Na·gy 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Seems an able, and willing candidate...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support I see no problems, will be an asset as an admin. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Sure, I think he'll be an asset with the tools. --CapitalR (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support nice guy, I trust him. He's not that bad IRL either. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Strong speedy support We need more guys like him. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 11:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Liars and dellusionists? Giano (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Giano, I understand you're angry about what happened, but I hope you'll consider letting go of some of your anger and moving on. As Neuro pointed out, he has apologized several times for what he did and quite explicitly said it was a mistake. After someone has gone so far as to ask for forgiveness for their actions, I feel it is in the best interest of not only the project, but of yourself, to accept that. Comments such this and this and this are really not helping anyone in this issue, and I respectfully request that you stop making them. Thank you, FlyingToaster 11:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Several times? he never appolagised at all untill he realised it was costing him votes here! I'll loose my anger when he withdraws this half baked candidacy and appolagises on the blog where he spread his lies. Giano (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Slightly modified to remove obvious personal attack. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

82. Support belongs here. --candle•wicke 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Support to spite Giano :) No, seriously, there are positives and negatives about Neurolysis, and I think the former outweigh the latter. People are allowed to screw up. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Support opposes unconvincing, interactions positive. Equals support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Support. People can change, and this editor has shown that he has.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support - per Q12. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    You voted twice (Support 62 and 88). GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Whoops, my apologies. Indented and struck. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

86. Support  Editor has proven they can be a useful and valuable member of the staff. --StaniStani  16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Oops, thought I already had. Sorry for being so late! —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. My interactions with Neuro have been very inconsistent. At times, I will approach him on IRC about something he's done that I don't necessarily agree with. I'll admit that most of these times, I lose my cool, and start acting rude, and I've tried to stop acting like that. However, one more than one occasion, I've been talking to Neuro in a channel, and before we finish the conversation, he makes a comment, and leaves before I have the chance to reply. I don't like the idea of having an administrator that walks away from issues, instead of trying to handle them. Besides this, I've read User:Neurolysis/Apology again before considering my !vote here, and I'm not exactly impressed by it. I don't like that he left his account because he couldn't handle the criticism. That shows immaturity, IMO. After he came back on his new account, I would at least expect him to come right out and say "This is me, I've created a new account." Instead though, it seems he only announced it because many were getting suspicious. Neurolysis is generally a great help to the community, and we do get along very often, but I'm not comfortable placing the tools in his hands. My mind is not shut close, and I'm open to discussing anything.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Edit: After seeing the blog comments, I've lost my thoughts of switching to support. He was showing me elsewhere that, maybe he would be great as an administrator, however we can't have admins going out and talking to people that way.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   So your oppose is based entirely on IRC events which have no impact here. Do you have diffs to back up your comment that he created that page only after people started questioning him about his identity? Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I seem to be reading his apology page slightly differently to how you are. He's admitted to his actions, and his attitude back then; rather than him trying to go "that wasn't me" I read it as "that was the face I show the internet - now I'm going to go for a fresh start without such a mask". He isn't dissociating himself from his actions, he's just saying that from now on that isn't how he will behave. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   (ec) It's based on my lack of trusting him with the tools. I took that from the first sentence of the page, "Many people suspected it and many people have been out with it and told me their suspicions, so I am going to be out with it now, because I believe transparency is one of the things that needs to be retained on Wikipedia, even if it is a nigh-on impossible task." - It seems he would have stayed hidden if he wasn't questioned.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yay, wordplay. Your lack of trust then is based on IRC interactions and his apology message, yes? Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, it is.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I promised myself I wouldn't respond to opposes, but I guess this is more of a clarification than a response. I actually admitted it because I believed that two months or so was a reasonable grace period to show that I was serious. I actually abandoned the account because I resented what I was shown to have become, not because I couldn't take the criticism. Thanks for giving me a chance to comment, I probably should have made them clearer. I respect your opinion, and you make some good points. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   And guys, it's fine. iMatt brings up some solid points. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Also opposing based on this, which shows that the 52% of the users edits are with automated tools. While I believe these are helpful edits, I believe that's too large of a percentage.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   52 percent... of over 25,000 edits. So to look at it differently he has made over 12,000 edits manually. If you are going to go all editcountitis at least look at both sides of the coin. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I came here thinking that I would support, but as most RfA denizens know I am stringent, and a stickler, when it comes to UAA. I don't have the time right now to provide the actual diffs (I can do it later), but I am opposing on the grounds that Neuro thinks UAA is the proper venue to report and block suspected role accounts, or usernames that are actual entities, such as bands or companies. It is much more appropriate to kindly assert or instruct rather than hardblocking. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   That's not an opinion shared by the admins at UAA. I've reported dozens of role accounts there, and I don't remember any not being blocked. And as I recall, your most recent attempt in this venue was shot down over leniency, rather than stringency, at UAA. What's up? Skomorokh 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   What I meant by "stringency" was that I am very scrutinizing of potential admins who wish to work at UAA. Perhaps it was the wrong choice of words. One could say that I am "lenient" towards usernames, but that's really what UAA is designed for - blatant violations. It isn't a venue to throw good faith attempts at article creation or misguided quasi-promotional usernames out the door. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   If UAA isn't the place to report usernames that are bands or companies, please tell me now before I get in trouble. I block every username that both represents an organization and creates an article promoting that organization. I'll have to wait for the diffs before I say more. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Chiming in - I also though that role accounts with role-account usernames were to go with UAA, and I thought I was pretty clueful. Obviously, if the user would create a new account with an acceptable name and access control that would be good, and instructing them to do that before going to UAA is right, but the old name still needs a block, right? Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ditto. Nearly all my own UAA reports have been blatantly-named company role-accounts, and I have yet to have one declined. If that is not the correct venue then admins have been blocking wrong. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Seconded. Though I'd hate to find out I'm wrong after about 500 blocks... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Thirded. This is widely accepted and practiced WP:UAA practice in my experience. FlyingToaster 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Wisdom: Perhaps it would be useful to draw a distinction between reporting a role account and wanting it blocked. Since WP:UAA is a venue in which to report names for action, rather than specifically a block, I do not consider reporting there similar to WP:AIV, where the intent is more assuredly a block. Reporting to UAA is only a request for action - and in perhaps most cases that action can simply be a friendly note and help in changing a username. I certainly don't report names to UAA with the intent of them all being blocked - do you have evidence to suggest that Neuro does? FlyingToaster 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Reporting to UAA is essentially saying "I want this username blocked" - it isn't an observational area. Simply because trigger happy admins happily block on sight without much research isn't really an issue. A new user who isn't aware of Wikipedia's heavily detailed rubric, shouldn't be blasted with a block because he is calling himself "DeathJamMRecords" or "BlackWidowSlaughterhouse" and creating an article about said entities. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I think there is room for disagreement between reasonable editors on most of those claims. That said, I'm not sure that we will accomplish more than just disagreeing on this page. Perhaps we can push some of the discussions of the role of UAA and the habits of admins there to the talk page? Or Wis, if you like, we can directly pose a question to the candidate about this. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Questions always appreciated. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I can understand Wisdom's concerns about reporting usernames at UAA, specifically when they are likely to belong to users that are unaware of our policies and aren't doing anything to do damage Wikipedia, and I support the stance he is taking, but I strongly believe this Request for Adminship is not the correct venue to voice that opinion. Neurolysis has reported usernames in accordance with policy and/or long standing norms that are accepted by the community, that's exactly the sort of behaviour we expect from our administrators, and I feel it somewhat unfair to penalise a candidate because they're following policy or community norms. I've always considered it a slightly pointless endeavour to try and deal with usernames that contravene policy because some trigger happy edit count obsessed editor that has been on Wikipedia barely a few weeks longer than the account they're reporting will come along and report that account to UAA, and it'll invariably end up blocked long before a polite request can be acted upon by the user in question; a wholesale change in the way usernames are reported at UAA and how they are acted upon by administrators is necessary, picking up on a candidate here isn't going to change anything, as I say, it's the wrong venue for the objectives you're trying to achieve Wisdom, as noble as they are. Nick (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the response Nick - I just want to make it clear that I am absolutely not using this RfA to soap box or voice my qualms/misgivings about how UAA is currently being handled by administrators or editors. This is a stance that I feel strongly about, yes, but I've said it before and I'll say it again, new users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and continually turning them away at UAA or NP with a virtual slap in the face will eventually sound the death knell for the project (a bit of hyperbole perhaps, but I trust you know what I'm saying). I will look deeper into his UAA contributions (and remember this wasn't some arbitrary thing I decided to do - it's the first thing Mr. Neuro cited he'd work) and revisit the discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose I am a bit concerned about Neurolysis' policy knowledge. It isn't uncommon that Neuro makes a request of an admin that gets turned down as unacceptable. For example, here, Neuro indicates that it is appropriate to oversight comments on request, if a user wishes to redact them. Regardless of if this passes or not, I ask Neurolysis please take care in ensuring actions are appropriate. Prodego ^talk 02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure that particular incident is an example of a policy misunderstanding; my impression was just that the user didn't realize there was a such thing as oversight and neuro was just jumping in to say "I'll see what I can do" since the user himself didn't know how to go about it; I don't think he was trying to oversight it because "the user wished to redact it" but because he felt the edit summary was offensive or harmful (and yeah, it probably wasn't really bad enough to warrant oversight, but that's just a bad judgment call, not a policy misunderstanding—since neuro himself isn't applying for oversight, I don't think there's anything harmful in his being willing to ask an oversighter about stuff like this).

   Also, I should mention that just a few hours before it neuro and I had been involved in getting another edit summary oversighted at the same RfA (in this case, it was an edit summary that actually was extremely offensive, and the offending user was blocked not long after for incivility), so it's not like this was just some random decision from him; I may have set a precedent by requesting oversight on that other edit summ several hours before. I don't know if there are other similar policy concerns you can mention, but as for this particular incident I don't think it should be held against him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   It clearly does not meet either the deletion nor oversight policies, and he did ask on IRC specifically for oversight (or deletion, it doesn't matter which really). This is hardly the only example, I can find more if you wish, it isn't specific, but rather a general characteristic I have noticed in Neurolysis. Prodego ^talk

   Again, sorry for responding, I promised myself I wouldn't, but that seems not to have worked. I do consider myself to have a reasonably good grasp of policy, and admit that I have indeed had a few slip ups in the slightly less common areas (for a non-admin to look into). It is in part due to things like that why I answered Q1 the way I did -- it is not my intention to perform actions without being confident and sure of what I am doing. Whilst I concur that your concerns are legitimate, it is my belief that they aren't indicative of anything other than what they are literally. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 09:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

4. I've interacted with this user off-wiki and am not comfortable with his general attitude. I think administrators should exhibit a certain amount of maturity and I don't see it in this candidate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
5. I suppose it won't mean much this oppose, since it looks like you'll pass easily, but nonetheless: I'm not sure I agree with those supporting that I trust this user completely, 100%. I like the improvement he or she has made, but I still have some lingering doubts. The dramamongering is a little offputting. Leaves in a huff, comes back a few hours later under a new name. Slightly fear a mass delete of amend something "important" a la Ed Poor (I think) and VfD. Fear a massive burnout and wanting to go down in flames. /amend Also, I think we have too many administrators... who haunt IRC. I'm a believer of on-wiki actions. Also, as Prodego highlights above, I'm not sure the grasp of policy, especially deletion/oversight, etc., is quite up-to-snuff. Some other lingering concerns as well, not necessarily concerning administratorship, so no need to outline here. I appreciate the work you do, neurolysis, and think you'll pass, so please be very, very careful using the tools. And don't put any 'thank you' spam on my talk page, if you would. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Not a response, rather, a question. Why do you fear a 'mass delete' (not entirely sure what you mean)? And I will certainly exhibit some caution when using the tools, that is, if this request is successful. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   E kala mai, my apologies. I started typing the sentence, but never finished. Amended to make sense of the senseless. Thanks. --Ali'i 13:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Not trying to make you switch (in fact I think your rationale is pretty solid), but what makes you think I would burn out? I'd be interested in combatting it, if you think my actions are indicative. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Rjd and others. Does fine work, certainly an improvement since leaving the Asenine identity behind; however, seems a little too drama prone. Feeling a little uncomfortable about the IRC cabal turning out in force to push this through. GlassCobra 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   May I ask which drama we are talking about? I genuinely am not sure. And just for the record, I only see 15 people I know from IRC on this page... — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   And what cabal? WP:TINC :)  iMatthew :  Chat  15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Might you be talking about the group of editors from Juliancolton's channel?  iMatthew :  Chat  15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   (e/c x 3)Yeah, too hasty of a statement on my part, I was coming back to strike it anyway. Sorry. GlassCobra 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   I only see 15 people I know from IRC on this page... now that is almost enough to get me to switch to oppose...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   I count about 30 editors here who frequent IRC (including in the oppose section), but as far as I know, there was no canvassing or such. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Before this goes anywhere, no I was not making that allegation... I just really got a kick out of his saying "only" 15 people that he knows from IRC. It struck an ironic bone with me as that is only 15 more people than I know from IRC ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) @I'm Spartacus — I see 77 editors that are Wikipedians — I don't understand what is so bad about IRC. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ah. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   I only see around 25 that I'm aware of. I've not logged off IRC in a few days, and I haven't seen any signs of canvassing. The request has been discussed, but only to have users wishing Neuro luck.  iMatthew :  Chat  21:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ali'i summed up my views far better than I could. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I've had a long history of non-involvement in requests for adminship or bureaucratship. I recently broke that and I'm not particularly sure why. Striking this vote; the broader community's judgment is what I've always trusted. Good luck, neuro. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose I have to agree with the other opposers. Neurolysis is a fine user but I don't think he has the temperament for being an adminstrator. It looks like this RfA is going to pass so I hope I'm proven very wrong. Sorry. BJ^Talk 06:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I'm worried, per Rjd0060. Also more specifically I'm worried about Neurolysis' newspaper blog comments on the Giles Hattersley affair (scroll down from the blog itself to the comments, please). I hope those comments don't indicate that Neurolysis' change of username and demeanour is only skin deep; but it's not looking good. He's commenting on a Wikipedia user, by account name, with hair-raising ignorance and assumption of bad faith; he can't have spent five seconds researching the matter. Yes, his comments are published off-site; if other reviewers here prefer not to pay attention to anything off Wikipedia, that's up to them. But good judgment, wherever it's displayed (as long as it's displayed with respect to Wikipedia, and in public), is the single most important quality I look for in a new admin. I'm not seeing it on the page I've linked to. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

   My comments were indeed not the correct thing to say, nor the right thing to judge to be correct to say, especially in the circumstances. My comments were out of order and wrong, and I expect no less than to be held accountable for them. For the record, I think Giano has the best intentions of the project at heart, and I don't know entirely what I was thinking at the time I posted those comments. At the time, Ryan commented on them, and I seem to remember trying to do something to apologise for my actions (although I don't recall what it was, and it doesn't seem to have been on Giano's talk page — maybe Ryan knows). I sincerely apologise to Giano for saying things which were neither correct, nor justifiable, but I will wait until this RfA is over to go over to his talk page to talk to him about it to avoid a pool of drama over whether my actions have any sincerity since I am only doing it when it comes up at my RfA (although I could have sworn that I did something like it before). I do hope you understand, and my only explanation (although not an excuse) is that I made a mistake. I screwed up on a large scale, and I am ready to be held accountable for it (which is only right). — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   • You made no attempt to apologise for your lies, and I certainly don't want your insincere belated and embarrassing apologies now just so you can garner a few more misguided votes - so stay of my talk page now and for good. Take your hypocrisy to the public newspaper forum where you so sanctimoniously told your lies and deliberately discredited me. People like you are a disgrace to this project. See my comments when voting below. Giano (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I'm not comfortable with this nomination at this time. Too narrow in scope in regards to what comes across as a quick-trigger view on "IP = vandal unless proven otherwise", in my experience. Also seems too intent on "gaining" adminship. Just a gut reaction perhaps, and perhaps harsh, and I apologize if taken wrong, it's not personal. Reviewing the earlier attempts at adminship, plus some interaction I've had with Neuro "as an IP" (check November archives) have tainted my view slightly perhaps. Tipping me from neutral to oppose: I'm about as "anti-IRC" as they come, and the insinuations of off-wiki canvassing, while probably exaggerated or downright untrue, are enough to scare me off this candidate, although I freely admit that my bias against IRC is likely getting the best of me in this regard. Keeper | 76 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hey Keeper - just a point of information: I've been on IRC continually since the start of this RfA, and not only has no canvassing taken place, but I had to convince Neuro he could stay on IRC despite the RfA. The RfAs, including Neuro's, often come up independently as topics of conversation, and Neuro was worried his mere presence in the channels could make some think about canvassing. So, I urge you not to factor nonexistant canvassing into your !vote. Also, I think there is some benefit for some admins to be on IRC. All too often users come to the channels asking for an admin's help, and their pings go unanswered. Neuro's on often, so those users would have someone to listen. Thanks, FlyingToaster 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Shall I switch my oppose to "per Giano, et al" instead and add a superfluous "Strong" in front of it? I am a strong vocal opponent of IRC (or I was when I was more active here). I don't even have e-mail activated for similar principaled reasons. On wiki is on wiki is on wiki. There's a reason we keep page history - attribution, yes. But also accountability and transparency. I freely admit it's not entirely rational, but it remains my rationale. Regardless, it isn't my primary reason for opposition. I could just have easily opposed on the grounds of "changed his name too quietly to avoid scrutiny". My opinions are on just that. Opinions. My oppose here is more of a gut reaction centered in personal interaction that has left me a bit uneasy about this admin-quest (for lack of a more civil term). The IRC is irrelevant perhaps, but still important to me as a participant exclusively on-Wiki. Keeper | 76 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose—I'm uneasy about the temperament side of things. Far too soon after previous RfA to have had time for self-reflection and development of the kind of skills we need to see in admins. Nervous that admins such as Black Kite and Bishonen are uncomfortable about this nomination. Tony (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC) PS, and I'm embarrassed about this public blog at the UK Daily Telegraph (excerpt below), which makes Wikipedians look like brawling fools, and insults the broadsheet's journalists as well! GREAT public relations, isn't it, and probably a breach of WP:Admin#Administrator_conduct if he were an admin. ".... Boo hoo. Then someone decided to leave an abusive edit summary and the whole thing is now completely blown out of proportion, making a complete mountain out of a molehill, all because you bloody guys couldn't get your facts right." Reply from DT: "Neurolysis: Thanks for the clarification but the article you're referring to was in The Times, not the Telegraph. Your comments would be better directed there." Rejoinder by Neur.: "Shane - Whoops. I suck. I'll work on a slightly more civil post now that I realise I'm actually commenting on a website of a newspaper that doesn't seem to want to have us drilled into the ground." Tony (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose: This person is totally unfit to be an Admin. He distorts the truth to suit his own ends. His temperament is wrong. He is not a person to be trusted. Just one of his lies was describing me as a "new user" that "we have come to see" in a public newspaper forum was more than a distortion is was a downright lie, concocted to ingratiate himself with Jimbo and God know's who else. Is this the sort of person who shopuld be an Admin. Lie, discredit and acheive, may be his motto; it is not one to be admired. We'll deal with his other lies, as and when this RFA continues. Giano (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Switched from support. I passed over Rjd0060's testimony but consideration of the points made by Bishonen and also Tony, substantiate this and make me uncomfortable. The behaviour on the blog, while perhaps well intentioned in some respects (not including using this as a platform to damage the reputation of another user), was rash, undiplomatic and consequential. This is not a good sign for a prospective admin. But most of all I don't like the idea that we'd elect someone to adminship soon after something like that. Wrong message to send. Sorry, Neuro. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose: Behaviour off-wiki often escapes notice, so it's always a useful pointer when these are available. In that sense, I'm afraid that Neuro has shown himself in the worst possible light: the posts to the Daily Telegraph are damaging not only to himself but to WP and all who edit here. In my opinion, its public nature makes it infinitely worse than anything he may have done under his previous moniker, for which he rightly got cold reception. His rapid succession of RfAs, would indicate his eagerness to step up to the block. However, I would say that it's been a few short months since he "turned over a new leaf". While I have no doubt that the apology for his actions as Asenine is sincere, the Telegraph episode –only two months ago –gives me great trepidation about his personality; his rapid apology at this stage can be no more than damage limitation to rescue his candidature. I am terrified that we may be getting "Neuropathy" (or a Mr Hyde, in more common parlance) as part of the deal when voting for Neurolysis. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose I think Wisodm has a good point and also have concerns on the user's maturity/temperament. Dean B (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose: The Hattersley affair showed shrill, screeching, and imperious wrongheadedness, and it included name calling that brought disrepute to Wikipedia. The amount of anger there made me sure that this person needed to be as far away from buttons as possible. Buttons can be undone, but comments at a public forum on an outside site cannot, and yet he was willing to go off half cocked and with incendiary charges there. How would his anger manifest, how would his haste show, as an admin? No. Temperament is the first and the only test of an administrator. I'm also sickened by the idea of someone using IRC to decide Wikipedia matters. IRC is not Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose: I'm afraid the behaviour on the blog is inconsistent with the standards expected of an administrator; furthermore, they demonstrate that the candidate isn't suited to the role of an administrator at this time. If the candidate was to make similar comments on the site here, it could lead to an escalation of an issue, that's something we really don't need. Nick (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose Not comfortable with a prospective admin castigating another editor off wiki. BigDunc^Talk 12:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose (Switched from support) The conversation (rather tale-telling about Giano) on the blog is totally unacceptable. I also missed to take a look into the previous account ( Asenine ) The character seems to be seen on the blog.--Caspian blue 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per concerns raised above.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose The issues raised above here are of serious concern. Eusebeus (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Six months just doesn't seem long enough after my previous strong oppose of his last RfA. I see that an about-face has been made... perhaps I'll feel differently in another six months. Tan | 39 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
22. regretful Oppose Sorry, but your behavior on the telegraph newspaper cite was deplorable... I did find this comment, particularly entertaining, Who am I? I'm someone who isn't enough of an idiot to reveal who they are on the internet. Interesting how your identitifying yourself is now biting you...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Bishonen above.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Per Bish, Rjd, Ali'i + a gut feeling that true temperament has been successfully hidden for 6 months, not actually changed. Sorry, I wish I could support, but we need less drama, not more. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ironically, you write "per me", but now I want to echo "per you". I think you've noted something I've been feeling about Neurolysis, the idea of suppressing the past, rather than totally changing. In his apology, he writes, "Because of all of this, I wanted to disassociate myself with my previous actions. I began to believe that change could only come with a new identity and a fresh start - a chance to show the community what I could achieve if I really wanted to, so I created my current account, Neurolysis. With this new identity on Wikipedia, I hoped I could retain the good stuff that I associated with my old handle without bringing along the arrogance and general inappropriate nature alongside it."(my emph) I guess to me, that strikes a bad chord. To me this seems like game playing. Why feel the need to disassociate from past (bad) actions, but hope for people to remember the good? Wouldn't just doing good over time be enough? Why change names like this? "What I could achieve if I really wanted to"? A screenname was holding him back? To me, here the idea of "hiding his temperament" hits home, and I just wanted to thank you for helping me zero in on my thoughts. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose - Neurolysis has a rocky past, one that has been well documented. While I am all for forgive and forget, I am not sure there really has been that big of a change. Between odd comments like the one noted by User:I'm Spartacus! above, apologies, and promises never to do it again I am left with a impression of immaturity and sporadicness. Two qualities I do not look for in administrators. Also this comment to a neutral !voter below left me confused. You hope that comments like that are out of character? Does that mean you do not know, or are just not sure if they won't happen again? Tiptoety ^talk 16:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    I believe that they are out of character, but that is not for me to judge. That was my point. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

26. Oppose. What I see at the Telegraph blog isn't the kind of thing I want in somebody who has fancy buttons to press here. That was bad, and it was very recent. -- Hoary (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Try running for adminship at off-wiki blogs or IRC, not here. NVO (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose, primarily for the comments at the Telegraph blog. I don't care whether it's 'out of character' or not, that's not the type of behaviour I want to see from an administrator - as others have said above, it brings the whole of Wikipedia into disrepute, and reflects very badly on Neuro. This diff posted in the Neutral section [3] is not exactly inspiring either. These issues, combined with his previous behaviour under his old account, give me too many reasons for doubt to support. Robofish (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Bishonen, Tiptoety and others. Jehochman ^Talk 17:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose. Could write a lot here, but I think OhConfucious wrote it best above. Whilst my personal interaction with this editor post name-change has been positive, there are too many negatives here at the moment. I think I would be inclined to support with a further period of his good editing practice, but at the moment - no, sorry. Black Kite 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Switched from support. Mainly per Bishonen. Though I agree with Tiptoety as well. Presumably you should know your own personality... Mr.Z-man 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose Too much problem with recent problematic actions to believe that the process of changing is as complete as the candidate believes it is. It may or may not progress further in the future. GRBerry 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose Clearly Neuro contributes a great deal and should be supported and encouraged to continue his good works with or without the "tools". There have been some instances that cause concern and misgivings. The off-wiki broadsides on a major (and at times controversial) contributor aren't a good look at all. I know you've apologized in this discussion, but I think this lapse in judgement and the lack of timely corrective action will require time to overcome. I think waiting a bit would be a valuable opportunity to demonstrate the good judgement required to be a great Admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose Per Rjd0060 Smitty (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Do you even review candidates at all? Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Just leave it. People coming after him and complaining causes just as much dramah as the initial vote. Ironholds (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Would you prefer oppose? This one is borderline, an oppose may have been more appropriate. DougsTech (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   You know, perhaps just not voting at all might resolve any/all the conflicts regarding things like this, Dougstech. - Fastily (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Not to perpetuate this discussion in a negative direction, but I'm curious as to how "this one was borderline" considering you feel there are too many administrators, which invariably causes you to oppose. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Doug, to decide that this case was borderline implies that you must have made an individual assessment of the worth of the editor. If you are prepared to take the trouble to do this with all RfA applicants, can you not see the value of sharing your thoughts after doing so, rather than just producing a cut-and-paste comment that 'crats will ignore?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   But now it's no longer a matter of Doug summarily opposing a candidate. Now he'd either oppose or neutral. What do you mean by "borderline"? 1636 admins is borderline "too many"? Do you have other criteria of which you have made none of us aware?Valley2city^‽ 16:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hey don't feed the troll! :) Majorly talk 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps we should AGF here and realize that DougTech is trying to act for what he views as the good of the project. I don't see how by any means a neutral comment can be seen as WP:POINTy. Nor do I see how an oppose could be seen as pointy. Compare an RFA discussion to an XFD - I don't see how it's any different. Presumably there's something better we could do. Fraud ^{talk to me} 02:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Asinine as I think it is, I think that Dougs opinion is appropriate in the neutral section. [sincerely...good compromise, Dougs ;-) ]--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2. I had no idea you were Asenine before today. Want I remember of that account, it wasn't all pleasant. — R² 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   And he hasn't been Asenine for absolutely ages. I appreciate this is neutral, but actually looking at recent contributions is always useful before voting. Ironholds (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Fully aware of who Neurolysis is, just very surprised to find out he and Asenine are the same person. — R² 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   The fact that you are surprised seems to suggest that a real change took place between accounts. Just sayin. :) FlyingToaster 09:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Kinda like the living proof that people can change - even on WP. SoWhy 09:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   He certainly has changed, I'll admit it. That is why I'm not in the oppose section. :) — R² 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC

3. Neutral User contributions show some good recent edits, but his over the top criticism directed against me after a misjudged comment I made in January made me feel very unwelcome at RfA. This incident makes me wonder whether he has the temprement for the stresses of adminship, he apologised for what he said but I believe comments like that coming from an admin would come across very badly. King of the North East 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Just to reiterate - I concur in entirety. My actions were unwarranted, unjustifiable, and (hopefully) out of character. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   In other news, it appears I still use "completely and utterly" in statements... that's a bit off. I'll try my best cut that out. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral Very good editor, who is always willing to help out, but I'm just not sure about this. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 16:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral In my original support, I said that off-wiki behaviour, unless it is atrocious, doesn't bother me. While Neuro didn't say he would destroy Wikipedia, but his posts to the blog make me question his... well not temperament, as he is a good-natured person, more his ability to acknowledge that in some settings, certain comments are never appropriate. I am sitting in neutral because if I had known about the blog posts, I wouldn't have voted, so I am really negating old vote more than making a new one. ∗ \ / (⁂) 10:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
6. I've seen him make comments that made me consider him as an admin, but at the same time, I wasn't aware of some of the background raised in the oppose section. Until I've looked into it for myself, I'm not comfortable deciding either way at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral On-wiki Neuro has shown himself to be very deserving of adminship IMO, however the concerns raised above are, well, concerning. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (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.