Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutralhomer

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

Neutralhomer

Final (41/41/11) ; Scheduled to end 16:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Respectfully Withdrawn - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn

First off, I want to thank everyone for !voting and giving feedback, in all three columns. I have taken a look at the comments and it seems I have things I need to work on before coming anywhere close to the 80% threshold, but more importantly getting the support of everyone. I have this page watchlisted and will copy it to my harddrive and work on all the points raised, not just in the support column, but the oppose and neutral columns as well. I will work to be a better editor and look forward to, in the future, doing this again, but I have work to do. With that, I respectfully withdrawn my request for adminship and again thank all of you !voting and giving feedback. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) – I am extremely happy to be able to present Neutralhomer to the community for consideration. Neutralhomer first began contributing to Wikipedia back in May of 2007, in that time accruing over 40,000 edits and over 300 created articles. More importantly, however, is the quality of these edits. Neutralhomer has spent a considerable amount of time in the article space (making over 15,000 edits) and he has made considerable contributions to Stephens City, Virginia (now a featured article thanks in no small part to his work) and Frank Buckles (now a good article due to his work on the article) in addition to his extensive article contributions to the field of Radio Stations on Wikipedia. Neutralhomer also has worked with the Ambassador program helping educational institutions work with Wikipedia

Neutralhomer has also had some issues in the past with automated revision and the like which resulted in him being blocked in the past. Fortuntatly, Neutralhomer has been able to learn from his mistakes, and he has not been blocked for over 11 months and he has been trusted with and not misused rollback rights for over 9 months. Now for many Neutralhomer's mistakes would cause them to leave the project, but Neutralhomer persevered and learned from his mistakes continuing to make excellent contributions to Wikipedia, and during my time here at Wikipedia, one of the best qualities that I have seen of our wonderful community is an overwhelming ability to forgive people for mistakes they have made in the past and I feel that the Neutralhomer deserves that forgiveness would make a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community as an administrator. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank Mifter for his nomination and I accept it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: My top priority would working in AIV. That page seems to always need an admin, so camping out there for awhile everyday would be a biggie. I would help on the massive Wikipedia backlog where help is always needed and the backlog drives that are currently going on. I would always have the Help IRC channel open for people who need help. Doing some recent changes patrol would be another biggie. Unless I could help it (and I would try damned hard), I would steer clear of the drama on ANI and AN. I have dealt with that has an editor and I don't want to be in the middle of that as an admin. I would try to be an "editing admin", working with articles, editing, and updating articles, but still working in admin areas.

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

A: My best contribution is the massive editing to Stephens City, Virginia. Now, granted I had alot of help, but bringing that article from a mere C class and taking it to GA status, then FA status (as of August 15, where it is now) and then getting it to TFA status (on September 5) was a HUGE accomplishment. I still plan on several articles about the town of Stephens City. I am currently working on Frank Buckles (the last American World War I veteran that just passed away in February). I have (along with others) brought it to GA quality (as of March 15, where it is now) and am working on getting it to FA status. It is currently in Peer Review. I am also the Coordinating Online Ambassador for the Media and Telecommunication Policy project from Michigan State University, where I am also an online mentor. I am actively working with the professor, students, campus ambassadors and other mentors in that project.

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: Anyone who has seen my blocklog (yup, I have one, it ain't pretty) knows I have had conflicts. In my "younger" years of Wikipedia, I didn't do well. I readily admit I racked up an indef block for being an immature asshole, plain and simple. I came back, with extensive mentoring, in 2008 and have, I feel, matured since then (my mentoring ended in 2009, though I still check in with my mentor every-now-and-then, as does he). Yes, I have let things get the best of me and gotten a block here or there, but it isn't to the scale of prior blocks. In the future (as I have done now), I have been "walking away" from things, even going as far as to remove ANI and AN from my watchlists so I don't even see what is going on. Can't see it, can't be in the middle of it, can't put my foot in my mouth. I feel that has worked wonders as since April 22 (almost a year), I have not been blocked. Now, I understand that this may be a "deal breaker" for most and I accept that. My block log ain't pretty and an admin-to-be shouldn't have his own Sanctions page, but again, I accept if you wish not to !vote for me because of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Beeblebrox

4. This is bound to come up at some point in this proceeding so I'll just ask you straight out. You were banned from using Twinkle last year, along with being blocked for a while. Why? Are you using Twinkle again now? What corrective measures have you taken?

A: It wasn't that I was banned from TWINKLE, it was I was banned from using the "vandalism" button, you can see that here. I went to ANI (which I don't have a link for) after talking with Jehochman (who revoked access) via email, several months later and asked for access to it back. Community consensus allowed me to have access to it back. During the months I was without access to the vandalism button, I would write manual vandalism warnings or issue test edit warnings, so AIV had an escalation of warnings to go by or just not mess with vandalism at all. After gaining access to the button back, I still don't use it as much as I previously did. I do issue warnings, but at a much reduced basis. I have been more focused on editing the articles, hence my reduced rate of vandalism warnings...and I aim to keep it that way, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Issuing them was causing stress to myself and obviously the community, so I have backed away from the aspect of editing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Nn123645

5. If you hang around RFA even occasionally you should know that not using edit summaries is a big deal for quite a few people. Why would you decide to go against that convention?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats on talk. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Sir, you have real balls for embracing hell week. Gotta give you major props for that. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just a note for everyone who has commented on my lack of edit summaries: I have added the "add an edit summary" gadget, so I will remember to add one. My last 11 edits (I know, not alot) have had edit summaries, this one will be 12. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Best of luck! Mifter (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Support I think NH has matured since the block incidents, and learned considerably more about the place. In my experience, editors who have been there themselves, and who are otherwise qualified as admins, as Nh is, tend to make less block-happy admins. I've mentored Nh a bit, and believe he will make a fine admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Support He seems to have gone past the block incidents totally, and is doing good work as an Ambassador. I think he will make a good admin. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
4. You know what, what the heck. I've had only good experiences with this user so, screw the existing sanctions — I doubt he'll break them even more so as an admin. Support. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 18:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
5. I have been familiar with Neutralhomer for several years (since May 2007), and am somewhat familiar with his history: I do remember some of the discussions regarding why he was blocked. There would have been a time when I would have opposed his RfA, though not now, as I do believe he has improved a lot and is a much, much better editor than he used to be; that being said, I do acknowledge the concerns listed in the oppose section, and I hope that Neutralhomer will continue his path of improvement regardless of how this RfA turns out. Every time I have seen his name in recent months, I've seen something positve (something that wasn't always the case years ago, sadly), which is a good thing. Acalamari 18:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Support, this candidate is an excellent editor with a great attitude and knowledge of how WP works. I firmly believe he's learned from his past mistakes and will make a fine administorator. Dreadstar ☥ 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. I can't say "no red flags" here, because, well, there's the block log and sanctions and edit-warring with RussBot and such. But I can say that NH is a hard-working editor who cares deeply about the project, and in my interactions with him, he's always been helpful, courteous and willing to respect and consider an opposing viewpoint. 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Support. Dedicated editor with the project's best interests at heart. He may have made a few cock-ups and a few of them may be too recent for some tastes, but one doesn't get an article through FAC by being an idiot and I could point out plenty of admins who have made cock-ups and errors of judgement of the same magnitude recently. Admins are human—a fact recognised by ArbCom and WP:ADMIN, but not by RfA—and so is Homer. He has plenty of more experienced admins to call on if he finds himself out of his depth, including myslef, Wehwalt and Mifter and wants to do things that constantly need doing, like blocking vandals. I can only foresee Homer acting for the good of the encyclopaedia and so it is my pleasure, no, my honour, to support him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Support why not. Jessy ^T/C 19:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Support The last block was nearly a year ago, and I believe they've moved past the disruptive behavior. They're a well qualified and experienced user and I think they'll be a great administrator. Swarm ^X 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Support You have a chequered history. not a controversial statement. But your block log, which is unarguably diabolical, is all receding into the past. I feel we could sensiblty trust you with the tools. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Sometimes overeager, sometimes aggressive, but I don't think he will be a bad admin. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Support has always come across as a good user to me, who seems to make a good admin. Maybe he's a little aggressive in the December 2010, but he's not being particularly uncivil. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Will be a good admin. Net positive. Good luck. Connormah (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
15. Support. Energetic, evenhanded, experienced. The only block during the last year was last April 22 and it was lifted after only a few hours; it involved misusing Twinkle, which I know nothing about, because I avoid unnecessary complications like Twinkle, and now I have an additional reason to avoid Twinkle. NH has apparently done good work as an "Ambassador", as well as working to get articles featured. My interaction with NH has mainly been about the Frank Buckles article, where we worked well together. He hasn't hesitated to warn me about other activity when he thinks I've erred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Support. I'm convinced that NH has turned the corner with regards to their past problems. Tiderolls 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Support. Always here to help.He well be a good admin.--Shrike (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
18. Support Based on interactions and observance of strong wiki clue. My76Strat (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
19. Support per HJ Mitchell. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Support If he screwed up terribly he would simply be stripped of adminship (seen it a few times recently). I see no reason not to trust him, and wish him the best of luck in this downright grueling process. Doc talk 12:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Weak Support I became aware of this editor only recently, and have generally been impressed. The sanctions page was disconcerting, but given his recent good behavior and helpful nature, I am willing to overlook it. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
22. Support (edit conflict) Even if he was blocked some months ago, I feel this user is very trustworthy to grant him the user right "admin". Anybody can make a mistake in his life and the goal is to adjust the mistake, and I think he did that.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
23. Support. My first instinct was to Oppose, after having looked at that rather horrendous block log. But it's clear that the candidate has worked hard to overcome those early problems, using mentorship etc, and the last block is nearly a year ago now. Then I wondered how I'd feel if he'd gone for Cleanstart 11 months ago, which he could easily have done. And just looking at the past 11 months since then, I see enough to be confident to support - and I actually think the candidate deserves credit for *not* seeking Cleanstart, and just running "warts 'n all" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
24. Moral Support Lots of flack on whats gone on a year ago, but I'll give some moral support to the editor, Neutral is improving so i hope it continues. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - Well, well, we've been a naughty boy in the past, haven't we? Still, that's all behind you now, and you must take into account the extra responsibility you have if you are trusted with these tools. Use them well. I trust you to move on from the past and serve this community well. Just because someone has been boisterous in days gone by will not mean he'll block Jimbo and delete the main page. Take note from below mate, even if some folk are being rude. Never changes here, I'm afraid. Orphan Wiki 16:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
26. I can trust Neutralhomer with the tools and echo the supporters above. You seem to have learned well from your past mistakes and have safely moved past them at this point. These, coupled with your enthusiasm for the project and solely positive interactions with you in the past compel me to support this request. Best of luck, Airplaneman ✈ 18:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
27. Support I've been a mentor for Neutralhomer in the past, and I have been very impressed with the way he has grown and matured as a Wikipedian over the past few years. Frankly, I think he is a true Wikipedia success story - an editor who went from being indefinitely banned to one who has contributed an FA article and is undeniably an asset to the encyclopedia. What you see is what you get with NH - a luxery we don't always get with admin candidates - and I think he can be trusted with the extra buttons.--Kubigula (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
28. Support is Neutralhomer perfect? No. Is he trustworthy? Yes. His decision not to seek a clean start, but to live with the block log he accumulated, to work hard and successfully on content creation, and to change his approach to editing is evidence of that. He has shown himself to be willing to listen to constructive criticism, of which I've provided a great deal. Wikipedia has always had a tradition of redemption for those who sincerely wish to improve the encyclopedia. NH's history is a clear example of that kind of redemption and forgiveness. Blocks are not be a mark of Cain, never to be lived down. Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
29. Support. Taken some time making my mind up about this one, because there are a lot of good reasons to oppose... but somehow I'm not quite convinced by any of them. Looking at the past ten months or so, I think NH has overcome the serious issues, and I would trust him to use the tools wisely. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
30. Support NeutralHomer is a good candidate who has shown the ability to learn from past mistakes. I haven't been round long enough I guess to remember the "old NH" and had no knowledge of his block log before people pointed it out here. I think the fact I have had no reason to examine it says something about how much change has occurred since the last block. And might I say his "person of the day" thing is good way to promote morale here. Editors grow and change and we should recognize when they do it. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. I've known Neutralhomer since August 2006, and he's learned and grown as both as an editor and as a person. He's made 40,000 good contributions, created hundreds of good articles, and his days of drama are long behind him. I'd trust him with the tools. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
32. Support. A responsible, dedicated contributor who has learned from his mistakes. PopularMax (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
33. Support. Great content. (This is much more important than people think. If we want to have quality that approaches Britannica or magazines or newspapers, we can't have admins incapable/disinterested in writing.) As for the past misdeeds, it will probably make him a better admin since he understands the mind of the misbehaver.TCO (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. Candidate has made many mistakes as per his block log and extensive history on ANI and other boards. Clean block logs for almost a year. Candidate has grown and mellowed out. His edit summaries requires remediation. He deserves a second chance to contribute more. --Visik (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
35. Appears trustworthy and greatly improved. Given how much this editor has overcome, I don't see why being on ANI a lot should be an issue. NH is quite helpful there. Grandmasterka 05:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
36. Support. Despite the block log, I feel Neutralhomer is an experienced, highly driven candidate that has learned much through experience. Because he's been through so many trials he's all the wiser for it. -- œ^™ 06:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
37. Support Neutralhomer is one of the community's biggest success stories in terms of perserverence, he's endured a lot of crap in the past, he's made mistakes, but he's moved on, learnt from those and bettered his own knowledge and experience in doing so. He's patient with the newbies and has got the kindness and other good qualities an admin should possess. He is trustworthy and knowlegeable, I find the per above opposes and opposers whose sole rationale is "chequered history, big block log". —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:42pm • 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
38. Support I've looked at over 100 interactions that Neutralhomer has had in the last few months. He's clearly a dedicated contributor. I mentioned while I was neutral that I had doubts and to make sure that I could allay those doubts I looked at a lot of contributions. Now, if NH had run for adminship 5 months ago, I'd have said no, but even in the last 5 months he has progressed a long way. This year, I have seen a few "negative" interactions, through all of which NH remained calm and didn't get worked up. On the other hand, I've seen countless offers of help to newbies, positive interactions and hard work for the betterment of this encyclopedia. I feel he's redeemed himself on the block log, the previous harassment and other issues - the last one being the edit summary usage. I was never going to oppose based on edit summary usage, but this is enough for me to support. Good luck Neutralhomer, you are a credit to this encyclopedia and give us hope for other less productive editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
39. Moral Support As someone who used to edit in the same areas as NH during his "younger WP years", I have seen the bad. But, I've also seen the good. NH can be a very intense and dedicated editor and for that he should be applauded. While I definitely agree that he has matured a lot over the years (as most of us have, no?), it will likely be a long time before he can be fully embraced as a WP:ADMIN. For now, I hope he can see how far he has come and not take this likely unsuccessful RfA as a negative but as merely another step on the learning path. I wish you continued luck, NH. JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
40. Support Will not purposefully damage the encyclopedia, but may bring some drama, which is always fun! Egg Centric 13:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, exactly what Wikipedia needs. More drama!—Chowbok ☠ 19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

41. Support - ready now. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am impressed with the block log you've had, and yet the admins have managed to let you carry on editing. You were blocked too many times in the past for 3RR violations and sockpuppetry, and at one point your rollback rights were revoked. I think this poor behaviour record would affect your judgement vastly, which is the reason why I'm against this RfA nomination. Sorry. Minimac (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per your extensive block log, and because you only use edit summaries 21% of the time. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   If not now, when? It has been 11 months since the last block.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   What for you would constitute trustworthiness then? You yourself were blocked just over a month ago so under your reasoning would you consider yourself trustworthy or what other criteria constitute being trustworthy? Best, Mifter (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   At least 16-18 months after the block has ended. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   We've had admins pass RfA's after being on Wikipedia less than 11 months with no blocks. So should everyone who has ever been blocked just create a new account (under WP:CLEANSTART) to escape scrutiny or should they learn from them and continue editing as Neutralhomer has done? Best, Mifter (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   WP:CLEANSTART is not really compatible with "to avoid scrutiny". Pichpich (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

   We have indeed had candidates pass RFA after 11 months or even much less than that. But candidates who pass RFA within 12 months of their first edit are rare to extinct in recent years. We recently had an RFA succeed for a candidate who had just under a years edits on their new account and who had exercised Cleanstart from an account with a clean blocklog. But at the moment I'd say that anyone who has been blocked is better off learning from the process and running after they have shown they can go 12 months block free. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

3. (edit conflict) Weak oppose - It is my policy to ignore all blocks and mistakes older than 12 months, so I will not hold the indefblock, sockblock, and host of other blocks against you. However, I have found that you tend to invite a lot of drama, so I have to oppose. You are also under sanctions. On the other hand, you do a lot of great work for Wikipedia ambassadors. I strongly disagree with Tofutwitch11 (talk · contribs) that "you cannot be trusted". Redacted comment. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not sure how my block for sockpuppetry poses any relevance here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   <redacted personal comment unrelated to discussion> Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not the one running for adminship here, now am I. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, Tofu, it wasn't related and I shouldn't have brought it up. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose Neutralhomer can be very combative and has been in trouble multiple times for wikihounding. I'm sorry, but I don't think he should have admin privileges. --JaGa^talk 17:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose I've seen Neutralhomer around making a lot of good edits, but.. the block log. I doubt that thinking in terms of a fixed expiry period for blocks is helpful, since a pattern can be quite telling. A long string of blocks over 2.5 years, and then RfA less than a year after the last entry block, which specifically referred to recidivism? I'm not sure I could trust this candidate with the tools just yet; sorry. Incivility is unpleasant from any user and that wouldn't put me off so much; but I worry that somebody with a history of socking & editwarring might find new temptations in the admin toolbox... If this sustained series of blocks were 2 or 3 years old, I would probably reconsider. bobrayner (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Let me throw a thought out here (this is for everyone opposing over the block log): suppose NH had abandoned this account in April 2010 and begun again (quite legitimate under WP:CLEANSTART). We would then have almost a year of contributions which show good content writing skills, policy knowledge, commitment to the project and, yes, good judgement. Would anybody oppose such a candidate? Because if not, we're basically saying that everybody should do this instead of admitting to their mistakes. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) We've had admins pass RfA's after being on Wikipedia less than 11 months, conceivably some of them could have been in a similar situation that Neutralhomer has been in except that they created new accounts instead of living with their mistakes and owning up to them so what message are we trying to send? Should everyone who has ever been blocked just create a new account to escape scrutiny or should they learn from them and continue editing as Neutralhomer has done. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   And if I moved to another country I'd have a clean driving license, because other countries don't recognise my home country's system of endorsements for speeding &c; similarly, people with poor records in other countries can come here and enjoy a clean license. Should all governments, therefore, cease to endorse driving licenses for minor offences? bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   NH hasn't exactly been an angel since that last block. This exchange took place in December 2010. --JaGa^talk 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I actually like that analogy :P, but moving countries is much different than creating a new wikipedia account (the latter being much much easier), and minor speeding violations wouldn't disqualify you or hurt your chances for gaining any position of trust despite what you may have learned from your past mistakes. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose You have a long block log. Sorry. WayneSlam 18:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Everyone makes mistakes, yourself and myself included but what is important is that people learn from their mistakes, and that we recognize that and give them a second chance (as was done with rollback on your own account after it was revoked for editwarring). Best, Mifter (talk)

   I know that. I agree with what you're saying. Alansohn also has a long block log but since I nominated him here I didn't oppose him. A lot of users did, though. The user who you nominated has learned from his mistakes and so did I with mentoring. Now I have my rollback privileges back. WayneSlam 18:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

7. At about every third thread at ANI I seem to see your username cropping up. From personal interaction I think you're a great guy, and pretty level headed. Why on earth you haunt the drama boards (thick end of 2000 edits to ANI so far!) has often befudled me. I'm sorry to bad faith you, but it really looks like a bit of a "career" move to be an admin, not something to help with the encyclopedia. Weak oppose, and willing to be convinced otherwise. Pedro :  Chat  19:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   I can assure you I don't think of Wikipedia as a career. I think of it as a way to get information that you normally can find via a Google search to the masses. Which, I think, is what an encyclopedia is all about. As for editing ANI recently, when I see a thread come across my watchlist I think I can help with, I try. I tried to help a user get away from the Abortion articles, which was causing him a lot of problems and focus on other articles that didn't have so much drama. I even enlisted the help of my former mentor, User:Kubigula, but failed. The user was blocked in early March and hasn't come back. I haven't tried to help a user like that since as I failed miserably. But I am off topic, I go to ANI when I think I can help a user with a problem and as I am sometimes online late, late at night, I try to help when not many admins are online. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Fair response. I'm stilly weakly opposing - I'm just not convinced at the moment - but I do have a lot of time for you as an editor; I have this RFA watchlisted and will review to the commentary in all sections as it progresses. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Please let me know if you have any further questions, as I will be glad to answer them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose - This says it all... we don't need admins who jump to conclusions when they could have just clicked a few links and fact checked. And if that's not enough to oppose for, how about this... which looks exactly like what he ended up getting blocked for here. It's obvious to me that the candidate has not fully learned how to not "jump from the gut" or stop hounding people to get their idea across. Simply put with those incidents not being more than 5 months ago, and the fact that it's a continuation of his abuse pattern going back over a 3 year timespan, I do not believe that Neutralhomer is ready at this time (or perhaps anytime) to be an administrator. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   You also seem to only use edit summaries 21% of the time for major edits, which is extremely annoying when someone tries to look through your contributions. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, I will try harder, well with everything, but especially the edit summaries. I have never been good with those. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral, you can actually set up a thing in your preferences to alert you should you not provide an edit summary if you want. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

   I was unaware you could. I only go to My Preferences to update my time zone when we "spring ahead and fall back". I will check it out and add it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 02:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I would be willing to ignore a couple blocks from several months ago, but NH was blocked on almost a regular basis for around 2 years, including a 4-month block in 2008. After that block he was fine, for about 11 months, and then he was blocked for harassment again and fell back into getting blocked every couple months until last April. In this case I'd like to see a clean block log for at least 2 years. He says in Q2 that he took ANI off his watchlist, but that didn't prevent him from making 37 edits there so far this month and 109 edits last month. 40% of his last 500 Wikipedia-space edits are to ANI. That hardly looks like "walking away" to me. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Sorry. The block log per se is not a problem. Indeed, the candidate can be given credit for choosing to press on with the account. But Coffee's diffs above show an ongoing propensity for conflict escalation, not avoidance and resolution. Having 2,000 edits to ANI, many of which are recent, (which per se is a concern) suggests that the candidate will not be able to help steering clear of ANI despite the nomination statement. We therefore have to be certain that the candidate will defuse drama and not be a magnet for it. And the edit summary usage is awful. Poor edit summary usage indicates (a) haste; and (b) a lack of regard for other editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose for excessive blocks, old sockpuppet issues, difficulty properly identifying vandalism, and a lack of edit summaries. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose. A huge block log, with the last block less than a year ago, sockpuppetry issues, still under sanctions, plus quite a bit of time spent hanging around high drama venues like ANI, and you want to be granted adminship now? No, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    I find that comment, along with several of the others above, to be grossly offensive and unnecessarily so. You are entitled to disagree with me on Homer's suitability for adminship, but to boil the sum of 42,000 edits over four years down to "A huge block log [...] sockpuppetry issues, still under sanctions" is not only unfair, but completely undermines the many thousands of productive edits Homer has put into this project. Those contributions include a featured and a good article, for crying out loud, so, while you;re entitled to your opinion, please express it with at least a modicum of respect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    To boil down a long-term contributor's career at wikipedia into one or two sentences which are probably factually accurate but only focus on specific issues is exactly what happens in hundreds of RfA !votes every month. If that grossly offends you, you have my sympathies. I have a lot of respect for neutralhomer, but... one can hardly blame folk at RfA for drawing such conclusions. Personally, I would have been happy to support if the period since the last block had been longer than the period over which neutralhomer was repeatedly blocked; that would have eased concerns about recidivism. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

13. Oppose I cannot support anyone without a clean block log.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    Not even Jimbo, who has been accidentally blocked before? Your rationale comes off as a bit hasty to me. The last block was a year ago; have you even examined his behavior and edits since then? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)Just one of my standards. Accidental blocks are one thing, I see nothing "accidental" about this candidate's blocks. Plus, it's NOT just me opposiing for the block log, so I see nothing 'hasty' about my rationale.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    From someone who opposed...I think that's pretty harsh...I mean...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    Very well; if a user had been blocked four years ago for vandalism yet became a prolific, respected editor who stood for adminship today, you would still oppose regardless of the positive contributions? I used the term "hasty" because your broad rationale comes off as a tad extreme or exclusive (as you just pointed out, there are exceptions, which you didn't point out initially). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    I'll say this last thing - every candidate that I have supported in the past (regardless if they got the tools or not) had a clean block log. Need I say more?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

14. Oppose In the few days I knew him it was clear that he lacks maturity, is too battle ready, lacks understanding of edit warring policy, and likes to make accusations without proof. A few weeks ago I opposed an ITN he supported and he immediately accused me out of doing it in spite of him even though I had opposed the same ITN a week before. Just take a look at this conversation and the other link and you will see it is obvious whether or not Homer should be an admin. Passionless -Talk 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
15. Oppose - That block log is too much, sorry, even if the most recent item is almost a year ago. Per concerns voiced above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose not only that but, HELL NO, This user has displayed repeated abuse of wikipedia polices, many edit wars, and multiple abuses of the tool twinkle. Ive lost count of the number of abuses that lead to the removal of rollback and twinkle, NH has had twinkle access for less than 6 months. I could pull more diffs of CIVIL and other issues, but I think that should be enough. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose: Pretty ugly block log. Apparently, the user in question has been even banned from certain topics. Abuses automated tools. I cannot trust this user with the mop.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
18. Oppose For the aforementioned reasons, I cannot trust this user as an administrator. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    Which reasons? The "support" section is also mentioned before your comment. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    Stop badgering the opposes Fetchcomms... you don't see me in the support section blabbering on. And besides you know exactly what Logan is referring to, so I'm not going to bother explaining that to you and neither should Logan. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    Coffee, you know just as well that I do that "per above" votes don't mean much. I'd like to know which reasons (too much time on ANI? not enough edit summaries? too many block log entries?) and it's Logan's choice whether to respond or not. It's also your choice not to "badger" supporters; at last count, I've asked two users for clarification, which I would hardly call badgering—if I wanted to badger, I'd complain about Delta's "HELL NO". If the candidate can't address as many concerns as possible before next time, how do you expect him to pass later? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    So asking Logan if he was agreeing with the support votes by opposing makes total sense in your mind? Right... — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

    Coffee, thanks for defending me, but I do need to clarify, I suppose :P. What concerns me the most is the unclean block log - I have a hard time support admins that have been blocked in the past, especially for 3RR disputes. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

19. Oppose I believe the wiki should be able to forgive and forget but the block log is still a deal breaker. I can accept old 3RR blocks or old civility blocks but hounding that results in specific sanctions is much harder to overlook. The killer is sockpuppetry though. It's unforgivable as a blatant abuse of other editors' good faith and as a refusal to respect community decisions. More worryingly, it shows that you really believe that you can game the system, or in other words that you're smarter than all of the idiots on the project. You can change how you behave but I think the underlying bit of contempt for others most likely lingers.Pichpich (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose Should probably remain the prolific content editor he is. Don't know if edit warring with a bot is just funny, or if there's more to it. Giving the bot operator a L4 warning over an issue he didn't understand, then fighting on without apology, makes me wonder what he will do when having block and page protection rights. --Pgallert (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Too many blocks and sanctions. Leopards and spots and all that. BigDom 08:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose per Δ and Pedro. Together We Stand Divided We Fall (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Together We Stand Divided We Fall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    User's first edit. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

22. Oppose cannot trust as sysop. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
23. Oppose I do not believe that this editor is ready for the tools. Many of the other opposes have noted sockpuppetry, wikihounding (although I actually agree with his edits which coffee cited re:Rlevse), edit warring, battleground behavior, and the block log; any single one of these would be a deal-breaker; when considered together, I simply cannot support adminship. Horologium (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
24. Oppose as past experience with Neutralhomer has shown him to advocate for punitive blocking of IPs because Neutralhomer does not "have time or energy to watch over [IPs] like a hawk" ([1]). Since the IP in question had made just one edit in 87 days and immediately stopped vandalizing after receiving a level-1 warning ([2]), Neutralhomer's assertion that the IP had been "sufficiently warned" is both flat-out wrong and shows a seriously flawed understanding of Blocking policy. I could accept and forgive this sort of a hostile, anti-IP attitude from a new editor, but not from a seasoned editor who had, at that time, more than 25,000 edits under his belt. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
25. Oppose, with regret, per Mkativerata (amongst others) above. Neutralhomer has good intentions, but doesn't seem to quite have the attitude required to be an effective admin at this time; it requires being able to maintain good interactions with other users, and looking at the links provided in this section he seems to have some issues in that area. The readiness to block IPs mentioned by Kralizec immediately above is concerning as well. Robofish (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    Oh, and though it wasn't a deciding factor, the '2000 edits to ANI' mentioned by Pedro is really not what I like to see in an admin candidate. If this RFA fails, I would strongly advise Neutralhomer to keep away from that page entirely and concentrate on productive editing elsewhere. That would make me more likely to support him in future. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    I would like to comment on the "2,000 edits to ANI". Yes, that is high and I will try and decrease it overall, but compared to my current 42,551 edits (according to Popups) it seems low. So, I feel it is all in perspective. With that said, I will try and work to reduce my time editing on ANI to nothing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 23:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

26. The block log doesn't bother me as such, given that it's historic. Indeed, the lack of recent blocks after such a history is a positive. But, per Pedro, the absurd number of times I've seen you at AN/I in contexts which are not helpful unfortunately suggests to me that the potential for misuse of the admin bit outweighs the perceived benefit of allowing you further tools to deal with vandalism. You're clearly a popular editor (I see several people asking you about potential adminship in your talk archives) and have shown you can learn from feedback on your behaviour, so I'd be happy to reevaluate in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
27. Oppose I'm willing to overlook past issues as long as the editor has changed their behavior, but this exchange (previously linked above) occurred only seventeen days ago. I also found the tone in this conversation troubling. In both cases, I think Neutralhomer meant well. --Banana (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
28. Oppose Your heavy block log has this RfA crippled. If only you were more mature from the beginning, then that may change the vote, but you weren't, so I won't change it. I'm sorry Neutralhomer, but that's the best I can give.--The Master of Mayhem 14:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
29. Oppose I think it's reasonable to expect that the community would want to see more than 11 block-free months before handing out the mop, considering you've been blocked 15 times, 3 of which occurred after your mentorship ended (which, as you mention in Q3, was the period in time when you felt you had matured). I'd support if you can keep it block-free for at least another 6 months, preferably 9-12. —SW— ^yak 15:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
30. Per "Why do you feel you have the right to undo an admin's edits?", only a couple of weeks ago. I do appreciate the work you do—and the block log doesn't bother me at all provided you've learned from it—but we have way too many admins who think the sysop bit makes them some kind of power-user as it is. Being in the all-time top 10 for edits to ANI isn't a deal-breaker, but it tilts me over the edge. – iridescent 16:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

    I would like to say that I don't feel being an admin would make me a "power-user", but would allow me to help in areas I can't currently right now. I would definitely feel the added responsibility of being an admin, but I would not be walking around in a cape going "I am Captain Admin" or something. Nothing about me would change except a mop icon on my userpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

    I think you meant "would NOT be walking around in a cape" Passionless -Talk 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

    Yup, added. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

31. Oppose Sorry but I cannot support anyone with such a low edit summary usage (less than 25% of all major edits!). Admins should demonstrate an ability to communicate their actions and edit summaries are imho an important tool to do so. Regards SoWhy 16:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
32. Oppose for obvious reasons. Baseball Watcher 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
33. Oppose - The prospect of allowing power tools to an editor with such a checkered block log is extremely troubling. Blocked for wikihounding??? Carrite (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
34. Absolutely not. I respect that you take responsibility for the past mistakes you've made, and I'm glad that you've made obvious progress, but your blocks are far too recent and far too numerous for me. If someone had been blocked once or twice a couple of years ago, I can get around that. But blocked repeatedly until just a year ago? No chance. With that said, I certainly hope you continue to make positive contributions to the site and the community. -- Mike (Kicking222) 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
35. No. Plain and simple. Over ten blocks (that I counted before I lost track of what was a block and what was an unblock/reblock to disable something) in the candidate's account history and they are requesting administrative privileges? I can not support that. Per my standards, I would have to oppose based on the length of time from the previous block, even if the others weren't there. I appreciate the candidate's work in regard to radio station articles (one of my pet areas, as well), but to give him the mop would be a gross misplacement of trust by the community. Strikerforce (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
36. Oppose Per Coffee, bobrayner, and Mr. Z Man. Granted we have had people that have had less than 11 months pass RFA but this seems to be an ongoing problem that I am not confident has yet been resolved as there appear to be other issues since then that have arisen, though not to the level of a block. To me the position of some of the people above that any user without a clean block log should never pass RFA seems to me to be absolutely too high of a bar. The lack of edit summaries is also kind of concerning, as an editor as experienced as the candiate should know that they are kind of a big deal at RFA. To me that is not something that I would oppose over, but it does make me wonder why you would intentionally go against a known convention. I would like to see the candiate continue with his/her work, avoid ANI or at least dwell there less often (we have plenty of other noticeboards to worry about), demonstrate ability to use automated tools effectively, and continue to have a clean block log for at least another 6 months before I would consider changing to support. --nn123645 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
37. Oppose. Seriously? People would consider making somebody with sixteen blocks an admin? That's pretty stunning.—Chowbok ☠ 05:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
38. Oppose - Sorry - the prospect scares me! If I came across someone with a history like this, I would be very worried - but to give them a mop - er No! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 09:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
39. Oppose - too many blocks, too many of which are recent (and one of which was an overturned indef), added to the number of worrying comments from other users about incivility and combativeness means I can't support in good faith. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
40. Oppose In addition to the general concerns above, the main issue to me is - as Fetchcomms put it in eir support - "Sometimes overeager, sometimes aggressive" - and to me, that is an oppose reason. I appreciate you've made good progress, and are heading in the right direction; however, at this time I do not consider you are appropriately cautious - and that is a concern in an admin. Specifically, recently, here in the "Ambassador" programme, when a prof. shouted to ask helpers not to move students pages [3] [4], your reaction was to tell all online ambassadors - on their talk pages, and via the mailing list - that they should stop it [5] and e.g. [6]...instead of, as I'd think better, stepping back a bit and saying "hold on - why shouldn't people move pages? What's the actual problem?". On the same page, when a question arose about reversion of unsourced material [7] your response indicated that the standard of V applies less to "random articles" than it does to GA/FA - and that unreferenced additions were acceptable [8]. I think that is inappropriate advice, from a mentor. In other (occasional) postings (which I can't easily find, because of the lack of edit summaries), I think your tone is inappropriately aggressive. It seems that most of the time, you try really hard to be friendly and collegiate, but occasionally you get angry, and rant a bit. (I can find diffs, if necessary). I think you're trying hard to improve, and I think you definitely have improved - but, I think you need to continue to do so, for a while longer, before you're ready to be an admin. I hope you'll accept this as intended, as constructive criticism. ≈99% of the time, you do good things, but the 1% of of sufficient concern that I cannot support at this time. Chzz  ►  17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
41. Oppose There is a lot of bad history here. The user has made a good start at repairing the damage, but I must go with User:Tofutwitch11 and look for a significantly longer clean slate.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Can't support, as much as I'd like to, due to active sanctions. Best wishes on the RFA though, you're tough for agreeing to do Hell Week. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral move to support. I've got to say I'm totally split here, one the one hand, we've got a block log longer than my arm, a user who was at the center of much drama, who has active sanctions, and 21% edit summary usage. On the other hand, we have an editor who has been a very good ambassador, who has helped me personally, who asks for help when he needs it, has kept his nose clean long enough to disregard the block log. I've got to admire your balls for stepping through RfA, when it's currently so controversial - knowing full well you will be a controversial candidate. I'm just about leaning oppose based on the edit summary usage, but will be doing a more thorough investigation over the next few hours. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The hardest thing about evaluating Neutralhomer has been getting through his lack of edit summaries. He made a commitment to "try harder" with edit summaries here and since then he's made about 60 edits, of which 8 had edit summaries. I can't bring myself to oppose based on edit summaries, but stating he'll change something and then not changing it does not inspire confidence. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I want to support, but the block log looks troubling. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   The candidate does have an extensive block log but his last block was less than a year ago. He has grown since his last block to be a constructive editor of the encyclopedia. He has shown improvement in many areas that caused him to be blocked. User:King of Hearts I sincerely ask you to reconsider your neutral vote. Jessy ^T/C 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   If you are going to badger not just opposers, but even neutrals, you should at least get your math right. The last block was on April 22, 2010 which is less than a year ago. Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the correction. Jessy ^T/C 20:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning oppose. Regardless of whether an 11-month clean block log is long enough or not, the ongoing sanctions, lack of edit summaries, and the conversation on Passionless's talk page are troubling. Kcowolf (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Neutral Per Kcowolf, except completely neutral and not leaning either way Pol430 talk to me 10:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I've been familiar with NH's edits for a while, and I think he'd make an excellent admin, in time. But many of the comments here are relevant, including references to the block log. I find some of the commentary amusing actually, but notwithstanding some of the superficial distractions... I think maybe some more time would be good. As for those distractions... that's why RfA is transforming from mildly absurd to ridiculous. This process really needs to be fixed. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Too many block issues, yet a good user. Tommy! 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral leaning towards support – I agree with much of what WormTT has stated above—on one hand, you are an excellent user that has been fairly helpful; on the other hand, you do cause quite a bit of unnecessary drama, especially at WP:ANI. I am currently leaning towards support, but I'll stick myself in the neutral section for now. —mc10 (t/c) 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
7. WormTT hits it on the head --Guerillero | My Talk 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Neutral − Has made many valuable contributions to many areas of the project. I would support, but the block log is a bit worrying. Although, the last block was a year ago, and the 3RR blocks were three years ago. People can and do mature. I'll sit on the fence for now to see how things unfold. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Moral support I've not looked closely into your history, but my memory of you in the last 6 months is almost entirely positive (I find you a bit "rough around the edges" which would be nice to improve but I can cope). 11 months after such significant problems is, however, too soon for me to support at this time. Keep up the good work, try to tone the occasional combativeness down a bit and I would expect to be in the support column in 4 months or so. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Neutral − I've never come across you or your work (contentious areas have never been my haunts) and there is nothing personal in my not supporting. However, while on several points you do not meet my my criteria for a pass mark this time, I will not pile on with an 'oppose' !vote. I'm sure that when a few months more have elapsed and you have taken all the advice on board, I will be able to offer my support next time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Neutral - that's one heck of a block log. I see lots of good, but, unfortunately, I see an extensive block log, which concerns me.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 15:07, 29 March 2011 (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.