Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paulmcdonald

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

Paulmcdonald[edit]

Final: 89/8/3. Closed as successful by WilliamH (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, it is my pleasure to bring forth User:Paulmcdonald for your consideration as an admin candidate. I first interacted with Paul when I was a clueless newbie in my first 10 days or so of editing when I was ticked off that he supported deletion of an article that I was reading. I vented at him a little bit, and he stayed calm and tried to explain relevant policy, though it undoubtedly fell on deaf ears. In any case, Paul was the victim of my constant questioning throughout my first few months of editing, and he was always patient, kind, and helpful. In addition to his helpfulness to me, he has all of the characteristics we as a community could possibly want:

  • In the last 250 AFDs in which he has participated, his !votes have been in consensus or there has been no consensus nearly 85% of the time.
  • His comments always indicate that he has thoughtfully weighed relevant policy and rarely are "per so and so" !votes, which brings me to my next point.
  • He is extremely well-versed in our policies.
  • Look at these three AFDs just from the last few days, and you will see that in each he not only linked a policy, but explained how it applied to the given situation. Being articulate is an important trait in an admin, and one that Paul undoubtedly embodies.
  • In addition to his knowledge of our policies, he has written numerous essays which are displayed on his user page.
  • He maintains a calm demeanor.
  • Even in this dispute, Paul remained calm throughout despite comments being made about his off-wiki activities. It shows he has a thick skin and can handle whatever may be thrown at him when he has the admin tools.
  • He is a content creator.
  • Paul has created more than 1,700 in his time at Wikipedia and has made over 16,000 edits, more than 55% of his total edits, to article space.
  • He keeps an archive of deleted articles so he can work to improve them and reintroduce them to article space.
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Mostly I plan to run through AFDs and help newbies adjust to the process of going through AFD discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would say that my contributions to the College Football Project and Kansas historical articles. I've also written a few essays that some seem to have found helpful in their work on Wikipedia. I hold these examples as some of my best work because they have stood the test of time and have been referenced by other editors. Check my user page for links to a lot of my projects and involvement.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: When I was new, I got in a lot of conflicts. That gives me the perspective of being able to help new editors going through the same thing--I understand the emotions involved. As I've matured on Wikipedia, I've learned to lean on the policies and guidelines. Now I encourage people who disagree with me to go ahead and say so. It's not about them or me, but about making Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Secret,

4.Do you still support your view of this essay you created Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information? Why or why not?
A: Yes, absolutely. I have found that editors who use the argument "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" are usually arguing about a very specific and indeed discriminate collection of information. Of course, all other policies and guidelines do still apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on this? Would your view on the way this policy is cited affect your closing of AfDs? Note also that I've placed a criticism of that essay on its talk page. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please understand that WP:DISCRIMINATE is not a policy or even a guideline, but is an essay. Second, I read your criticism on the talk page about five times and I still don't really understand what you were driving at. I think (but am not positive) that your comments were pointing toward the necessity of not just having a reason to gather information together, but that reason must be clearly communicated. That's true. When looking at an AFD of an article where a collection of information exists and is discriminate but that discriminate categorization is not clearly communicated, we're looking at an editing issue rather than a deletion issue. Provided all other issues are in alignment (such as notability/etc.) then the content needs to be modified, not the article deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5 What is your current opinion on WP:BLP1E?
A: I think that it leaves a lot to interpretation on the fly. Basically, it states that low-profile currently living people are not notable if they are only known for one event... unless, of course, they actually are notable for one event. It's not very clear. That's okay, that's why we have discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6 What is your view of consensus?
A: I'm assuming you are asking about the concept of consensus while linking to the article/policy and not necessarily my view of the article/policy itself. Consensus can change. Consensus is not always clear. Consensus is not a scoreboard or popularity contest. Consensus is not determined by volume. Consensus can change minds of individuals or it can strengthen their resolve. And most importantly, consensus is not always the way I think it ought to be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DrumstickJuggler,

7 We have many admins on Wikipedia, so what do you think will set you apart from the others?
A: I don't really know other admins on Wikipedia so I really cannot fairly answer that one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Additional question from WorldTraveller101
8. Do you plan to be very active in user-discipline areas as well, such as blocks, AIV, ANI, and other discussions?
A: User-discipline areas would be a new area for me. I don't know how to block someone if I wanted to. I have no objection to learning how, but before that I would want to spend time in discussions about user discipline. I have some experience in discussions but more would we welcomed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Scottywong
9. If you were forced to classify yourself as either an inclusionist or a deletionist, which one would you choose and why?
A: I oppose the theory that there are only two categories: inclusionist and deletionist. It's too simple of a theory and I have been accused of both. To me, I prefer to keep articles that don't violate any policy or guideline. Yet I have also found articles that don't violate any policies or guidelines that I would hope that consensus would choose to delete just the same.
In my reported AFD statistics of my last 250 AFDs (out of 1,038), I have taken a position of keep or speedy keep 50% of the time and delete or speedy delete 45% of the time. I doubt that if you went back to my first 250 AFDs you'd get the same results.
When choosing to close an AFD, I think that it should come down to first Wikipedia Policy and then the merits of the arguments and the consensus of the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Follow-up question to Q9. First, some stats: Historically, about 60% of all AfD's end up with a consensus to delete (including speedy delete), about 20% end up with a consensus to keep (including speedy keep), and the remaining 20% end up with something else (no consensus, redirect, merge, etc.). See this analysis from a few years ago. So, according to your statement above, you vote to keep articles at AfD about 50% of the time, yet on average, 20% of all AfD's end up being kept. I'm interested in your reaction to and objective explanation of this discrepancy. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to make sure that they vote to delete 60% of the time and vote to keep 20% of the time. However, it could be argued that significant departures from those average rates might be evidence of a bias or an agenda at AfD, and I believe that these departures should be explored in any RfA candidate.
A: Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm with consensus. Sometimes I am not. Further, sometimes I participate in an AFD and sometimes I skip it. If I don't have anything to offer, I usually skip it. So instead of measuring my partcipation against the results of the universe, I suggest measuring my participation against the results of my participation. As Command and Conquer Expert! points out below, I'm with consensus a significant measure of the time that I participate in AFDs.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I would add that it's not a "discrepancy" to have a differing point of view or a difference in understanding on a subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Another follow-up question to Q9. Throughout the 1,038 AfD's you've voted on, there were 73 instances where you voted Keep on an AfD that eventually closed as Delete, yet there were only 18 instances where you voted Delete on an AfD that eventually closed as Keep. I'm interested in your reaction to and objective explanation of this discrepancy.
A: Let me get this straight: out of 1,038 AFDs, there are 73 where I said keep and it closed delete, plus another 18 where I said delete and it closed keep. Thereby making me incorrect on 73+18 or 91 times out of 1,038. So you're saing that I was on the "wrong" side about 9% of the time and you want me to explain myself?
I hope I can continue that record--that's encouraging to me! If anyone believes that is not enough they should feel free to continue the search for the perfict admin who has 100% predictablity of the outcome of AFD discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the purpose of my question. Overall, you were on the "wrong" side closer to 25% of the time (which is not problematic, in my opinion), I'm just focusing on 2 specific situations when you were on the "wrong" side. And, it so happens that you voted Keep on Delete AfD's about 4 times more often than you'd vote Delete on Keep AfD's. This is the discrepancy for which I was looking for a comment. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh you want to know why I have a tendency to be wrong four times more often when I say keep instead of delete? Why can't I be equally wrong when I say delete or keep? (thinking... thinking... thinking...) I have no idea. But since I'm wrong 73/1038 vs 18/1038 or 7% vs 2%, I personally don't see that as statistically significant. Others are free to take that how they wish.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Tucoxn
12. Thanks for making informative responses to the questions that editors are asking you. In your responses above you state that you're interested in doing AfD work as an admin. According to this analysis, it looks like you have not done any non-admin closures of AfDs, although it would only be an indicator of knowing the process of how to close a discussion, as a non-admin. As someone with your level of experience in that area, it seems like a step that would be interesting to learn prior to becoming an admin. It's easily arguable that making non-admin closures of AfDs is not a prerequisite for becoming an administrator. Could you please respond to why you decided not to make any non-admin closures of AfDs?
A: The only time I ever felt like making a non-admin closure of an AFD seemed to be in AFDs where I already participated, and I don't believe that would be appropriate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Carrite
13. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other User name or names? If so, what were these?
A: I have only edited under the name User:Paulmcdonald.
14. Do you support the longstanding consensus on whether articles on schools are kept or deleted at AfD? Why or why not?
A: Do you mean high schools and colleges? That seems to make sense, as generally there is found to be arguably enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG most every time it is challenged. I've found the opposite true for elementary and junior high/middle schools. I'm okay with it, I find that it does no harm and can make Wikipedia more robust.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Are there circumstances in which the policy WP:IGNOREALLRULES might supersede the GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINE at Articles for Deletion? Can you give one or two examples of when this might be applicable? Or is it never applicable?
A: Of course. "Ignore all rules" is a policy where "General notability guideline" is a guideline. One such example might be where a subject may indeed be notable, have plenty of reliable sources, but the article is so poorly written and full of gibberish (or incorrect information) that it may indeed need to be deleted or userfied at least until an enthusiastic editor or editors can bring the content up to a presentable level and a consensus of those participating in the discussion support that idea. Another example is the aforementioned high school--maybe a school has a hard time drumming up reliable sources, but gosh darn it everyone just seems to want the article anyway. Well, let's ignore the rule and keep the article because consensus says so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. How would you close an AfD case that has been held open for three additional weeks but in which the only opinion expressed remains that of the nominator?
A: I wrote an essay that sort of addresses this at WP:POCKET a few years back. If there is no opposition to it, then no one really seems to care. The policy used to be "silence implies consent" but that is now not explicitly in the policy that I can find. What I'd probably do at that point today is review the article and comment in the AFD rather than attempt to close it myself. This would give the next admin a chance to have some additional perspective.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your answers. Your answer to #15 is an absolutely perfect reflection of my own thinking, by the way... Carrite (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Paulmcdonald
17. I'd like to hear more of the alleged "disapproval of anonymous editing". Is his disapproval so well-known or why isn't the statement subject to inquiry?--User:Razionale moved by candidate from discussion section below
A: Figured I'd be WP:BOLD and move User:Razionale's question below up here. Among my userboxes is a userbox that states "This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles." I still do think that. But registration is not required to edit, so people are free to edit without registration. You can also learn that I "(loathe), but is forced to observe, Daylight Saving Time"; that I "(support) the ban on smoking in public places"; and that "(Wish) the people who named Football and Football had thought up less confusing names." I'm also against the designated hitter rule, but I don't think there's a userbox for that.
But about my position on anonymous editing? I wish it wasn't that way. But it is. I have no desire to lead a charge to change that, nor would I treat any anonymous editor differently from a registered one. The bottom line is that the strength of the argument lies in the argument itself, not in the person making it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - enthusiastically, as nom. Go Phightins! 22:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Paul has been a strong editor, regular talk page participant, and prolific content contributor, especially in his favorite subject areas of American college football and Kansas history, with over 1,700 new articles created. He has also been a long-term and regular AfD participant, with over 1,000 AfD discussions to his credit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true. As of the moment of writing, the candidate has 1714 articles under his belt. The nomination mentions just 100 articles but that's because the results were "Trunctuated to 100 pages" according the link given. Many of them are not very long but the number is still amazing.--Razionale (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I was thinking he had to have written more than 100, but I couldn't figure out why that page counter was only mentioning 100, especially since after I wrote up the nom statement, he wrote 3 more articles and the counter still said 100...thanks for clearing that up. Go Phightins! 10:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Phightins, I have taken the liberty of correcting the link to the full list of new articles created by Paul in your nomination statement on the assumption that you would not object. It's a truly remarkable record that interested editors should have the opportunity to review if they want to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I've run into this editor before at AfD, and I a positive impression of his contributions there, one that's confirmed by my review of AfD, article creation, and talk page histories. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Terrific nom by Go Phightins! Paul strikes me as a very mature person. One stretch that must have been very trying was a mass AfD nomination of articles created by him, and I think he handled it well - see this talk page discussion and this wikiproject discussion. And that was back in 2008. Also, in all of the nominations that I found from this incident, the articles are still there. One minor thing: If he becomes an admin, he should start archiving his talk page discussions instead of deleting them. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support The potential for narcissistic behavior and the disapproval of anonymous editing are a little concerning. Keepscases (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Keepscases, why do you think there is a potential for narcissistic behavior? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have no idea what this means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all perfectly normal. Move along. Shadowjams (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, how do we "move along"? We have already asked the question. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Certain things on the user page suggest the potential for narcissism, including the candidate's birthdate and listing of every college the candidate has ever set foot in--however, since the issue is not to the extreme we have seen in certain other candidates, I see no reason not to still support. Keepscases (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to hear more of the alleged "disapproval of anonymous editing". Is his disapproval so well-known or why isn't the statement subject to inquiry?--Razionale (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC) moved to question section above by candidate--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - per nom. Paul also has met consensus 83% of the time on AfDs when !voting (not counting AfDs that were closed as no consensus), which is much higher than some other admin candidates. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Another fine editor. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 00:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Great AfD work. We still need a few more admins to help us clear the AfD queue occasionally. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Everything looks great to me. Seems like he'll keep his cool, and he's done good work with AFDs. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely. Kurtis (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Mediran (t • c) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strongly Support: Paul seems like a very active, strong editor. Also, it's nice to see a clean block log Cheers and good luck. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 01:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Very mature editor. I agree with RM, though, that he should probably archive his talk threads. TCN7JM 01:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, an overall net positive for the project. — -dainomite   03:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rschen7754 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. What I see is an editor familiar with AfD who would like to get the tools to help him in this area, and open to learning how to use them elsewhere, with no indication he would misuse them. As for me mop'n'bucket are not a big deal, I don't see why this editor should not get to try them out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per dirtylawyer, this editor is obviously focused on building the project, 1700+ articles, bravo! Darkstar1st (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Lots of content contribution + great work at AfD + lengthy service while remaining drama-free + nice answers to the standard questions + legit reasons for wanting the mop + a balanced approach = a great candidate for adminship. It's no big deal, after all. — sparklism hey! 07:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Arctic Kangaroo 08:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. It doesn't trouble me that he doesn't know me, as I don't know him either! Deb (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I have seen Paul around at AfD, and his comments always seemed helpful and incisive. I trust that he will go slowly in areas that he is not familiar with, so I'm not worried about the relative lack of experience in user conduct venues he mentioned in question eight. He has plenty of experience at AfD, which is the venue he wants to work in, and that's more than good enough for me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No major concerns Jebus989✰ 08:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (moved to oppose) Support competent, experienced, fair minded, cheerful. Likes the wrong kind of football, but nobody's perfect. (Could I echo the suggestion to archive the talk page? Trying to find something you know is there but not when it was put there is much easier in an archive than in a page history.) --Stfg (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (re Q4, I've commented at the WP:DISCRIMINATE talk page too, since I think it rather spectacularly misses the point of WP:IINFO. This doesn't reduce my support, though.) --Stfg (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I am a little uneasy about the answer to question 5. However Paulmcdonald's AfD work is strong. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it's kind of hard to give theoretical answers to subjective policy questions. I wouldn't be surprised if one could find several AfD discussions in which he demonstrated a clear understanding of BLP1E; being able to explain that policy without context isn't so important. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Good editor, has a great demeanor and is perfectly suited for adminship. Good AfD work, but I don't even care about that, because I'm confident this editor could learn any necessary field quickly and fairly. One of the best RfA candidates I've seen in a while. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - A good contributor with some AFD experience. I'm also supporting per the opposes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Tons of content, understands AFD well, hasn't been sucked into the drama of the admin pit, great answers to the questions, what is not to love? Seems like a calm and highly independent candidate who understands our own flaws and the difficulties that new editors face, which is exactly the kind of person I like to see at RfA. It doesn't hurt that I trust the nominator as well. I actually like his answer to #5, btw, and think it shows he actually understands how the policy works, or sometimes doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - no concerns and I think he'll do good things at AFD. Has a solid understanding of sports notability criteria which can be harder to judge (both in terms of policy and consensus) so will be a valuable asset in that sense. Stalwart111 11:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I've seen him at AfD before, and he provided some great arguments. I'm not at all concerned about him, and I think he'll do well with the sysop tools. ZappaOMati 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - don't see any problems. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support - He's managed to edit in areas (sports) that can produce huge amounts of drama and has done so without producing drama. I trust him to work slowly in areas he's unfamiliar with, and he's mature enough to ask for advice and then respect that advice (something that seems all too rare in some quarters). Intothatdarkness 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgraded to Strong Support based on his answers to some of the questions above. No OWNing of policy is worth an upgrade to me. Intothatdarkness 13:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Excellent work with WP:CFB. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Very strong support - Apparently there is a big backlog at AfD, and some "prolific" and celebrated "content creators" are providing new entries at AfD every day. So, every hand in this area is more than welcome. Kraxler (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Increased support after reading Scottywong's oppose rationale, and reading again the nitpicking Q 9-11, and Paul's excellent answers. AfD discussions are meant to gather a variety of opinions, so that the closing admin can judge where the consensus is. (Or what would you make of a vote I saw in another RfA which says something like "I support you because, although you have no clue, there are already so many opposes that you should earn a support too."? It's certainly a valid support rationale, but the voter is certainly not trying to be on the "right" side of the eventual outcome...) Kraxler (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support marvelous candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - No concerns here. Seems like a good candidate. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, and a pretty easy one at that. Lots of great contributions, calm and friendly interaction, plenty of clue, strong nomination, answers to questions just fine - sounds like someone who will work well in areas he knows and will be cautious in areas he doesn't. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good responses to the questions and the strong nom well supported by evidence (nice work on the nom Go Phightins!) all point to a level headed and clueful editor. --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that I particularly like the last sentence in the response to Q10. Spot on, imo. --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good answers to the questions, the few opposes down there are utterly unconvincing, not seeing any red flags otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Resounding support - Great answers to questions, super strong background in admin related activities. Trustworthy, active and clueful enough to deserve the bit. -TIM(Contact)/(Contribs) 19:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support; without hesitation. — Coren (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Candidate seems very clueful. Miniapolis 21:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Absolutely because admin is and should be no big deal. I have seen the user here and there but never interacted with them. I suspect this user will be one of the 650+ that rarely uses the tools but I also don't think I need to worry about them deleting the main page either. Kumioko (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support — The candidate understands policy, is a great content creator, and has a strong edit history and a clean block log. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per nom. INeverCry 07:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support no concerns. Tolly4bolly 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 11:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - no concerns, admins with AfD interest/experience always welcome. GiantSnowman
  50. Support - Seems to have a breadth of experience, including admin related areas, and good answers to questions. Candidate seems trustworthy, clueful and calm in the face of adversity. Pol430 talk to me 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - although I do not recall any interaction with the subject of this RfA, all the numbers look good, and there doesn't appear to be any object able answers to questions or past actions by the subject of this RfA. Furthermore, outside of the quality work that the subject has created, he is an Eagle scout, a plus IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Good answers; seems clueful and confident. ceranthor 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support A great candidate - calm, clueful and willing. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support – no concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Good to see someone with a healthy proportion of mainspace edits. Nobody should show up here with less than 50% and expect my vote. A little disappointing that this editor can devote over 100 edits to an article and its still a start class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support – Likely to be fine. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, Faizan -Let's talk! 04:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support No issues. Widr (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Despite my being an ardent defender of the rights of IPs, this is clearly a strong candidate. Manning (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Yes - impressive answers to questions above; no red flags here. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 06:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Some of the questions give me the feeling people are just digging for an opinion they can disagree with and oppose based on. Overall I'm pretty happy with how Paulmcdonald has handled it, and other aspects look very positive. ~ mazca talk 08:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - can't see any reason to think there will be abuse of the tools. Particularly impressed with the answers to Q9-11. - Shudde talk 10:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No problem.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - More than adequate tenure, over half of edits to mainspace is a positive bonus, clean block log and no indications of assholery. No concerns whatsoever with previous AfD participation and a sensible answer above in the questions section on the relationship between WP:IAR and WP:GNG that should be required reading for any administrator ever seeking to close an AfD debate. Keep up the good work! Carrite (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the question that tipped me to oppose, as he doesn't mention anything about BLP or potential harm to the encyclopedia as exceptions, but instead he said that he would use IAR on "but the article is so poorly written and full of gibberish (or incorrect information)" as an IAR exception. That's the biggest miss a person could write for that question policy-wise. It has never been an acceptable practice to nominate and delete something that has "plenty of reliable sources" just because the article is a mess, and then start over after deleting. AFD is not cleanup, and unless there are other policies the article violates, like BLP, it almost always gets kept in AFD. If he clarifies it further, I might go down again to neutral. Secret account 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support. Wasn't going to vote, but the opposes are flat out ridiculous. For what it's worth, me and him disagree on AfDs quite often, so the guy certainly is more inclusionist then I'd like. Conversely, I'm sure I'm more deletionist than he'd like (he's not alone there). That being said, he doesn't keep articles just to do so, but actually provides sound arguments and analyzes the discussions accordingly. Not only do I trust him, I would trust him with AfDs over a lot of users. The fact that he's against IP usage only strengthens my support; dealing with copyright and vandalism would be so much easier with registration. I'm usually not a question guy, but I can't see where anyone with common sense would actually have a problem with any of the answers. Wizardman 18:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support The opposes just don't swing it for me.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Net positive contributor. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Can't think of or find any compelling reasons why not to. I can understand sScottywong who raises some interesting points, but I'm impressed with the reflection and maturity in the responses to all the questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Per everyone above and trust in the nominator.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Per Dennis Brown. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: Will make a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. MugsWrit (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Especially because of his answers to Q5--the simplest and best statement I've ever seen on that particular problem; and also to Q15 & Q16. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Per Dennis Brown and several other rationales above. For me this falls into the category of "I thought Paul already was one" MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I am always interested and supportive of candidates with strong article contributions and plenty of AFD experience. We certainly need more admins who are willing to make a tough close and recognize that 'no consensus' can be as bad as a wrong keep or delete outcome. That said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Scottywong, and while Q11 seems a bit odd, I didn't really like to see as confrontational an answer though no where near making me want to oppose. Mkdwtalk 08:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I'm pleased to see this nomination. Clearly a thoughtful, co-operative and level-headed person. Minima© (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support looks good to me. --99of9 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support No concerns here! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Stephen 23:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support btw, I especially like his refusal to classify himself according to the deletionist/inclusionist tribes, which really ought to be a precondition to getting the tools, imo. Anyway, no issues from what I can see. I like his answers and the fact that he defends himself lucidly and firmly. Good for him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. support Happy to show up and see this. Long liked Paul as a mostly reasonable person with a frank way of doing things. That said, I'd urge Paul to take seriously some of the issues that the opposers raise. In particular just be sure to be thinking first as an admin and second as Paul, pretty much per your answer to 18. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support never interacted with this user but I am very impressed by this user's attitude and answers to questions. I also couldn't care less about what they vote on AfDs. Snowolf How can I help? 15:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I particularly appreciate the amount of content creation.--Snow Blizzard 19:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per the last sentence of the candidate's answer to Q6. I see some concerns about his opinions on AfD being different than those of other editors (and perhaps different than mine), but I don't see any convincing arguments that he would use adminship to push his opinions against consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Very qualified candidate - should be a great admin. – Connormah (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. This'll wrap-up fairly shortly, but I feel compelled to stop by and offer my support before it ends. I've perused through Paul's talk page, in which I see plenty of cordial interactions and a friendly editor who's willing to collaborate with others. Per the nomination statement, Paul has a broad range of experience and has proven that he can remain level-headed even in a dispute. This coupled with his impressive demeanor and the fact that he's been a steady contributor here for quite some time make him a more than suitable candidate for the mop. Good luck and all the best, Paul. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Encourage cogitation rather than rote application of guidelines. Definite support. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. I wasn't planning on participating in this one, but I do like the question answers. ϢereSpielChequers 10:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Primarily, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also a community, especially when it comes to administration. I initially was neutral per the concerns raised by Keepscases and when you add that to a lack of knowledge of other adminisitrators, I just can't support this process. While I acknowledge it would be impossible to get to know everybody, it helps to know at least a decent selection of admins in the community that you are working in.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DrumstickJuggler, I was puzzled by your question. What were you hoping to hear? It seemed like an invitation for him to declare himself superior to the current admins, which would be a bad mistake. How well do you expect him to know a "decent selection" of admins, and why would that help? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With plenty of admins focusing on the many areas of Wikipedia as it is (in particular, we already have many deletion discussions admins) having an excessive amount of administrators is like over-staffing a company. So I'd want to know if he brings anything new to the table to compensate this.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno...there are some people who think we need more admins. I'm not really sure of that answer, though. You don't just want him to have the same qualities as the other sysops, but also something more? That doesn't really seem fair. TCN7JM 10:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As time passes, Wikipedia improves. What was acceptable in 2009, isn't necessarily acceptable in 2013. To put it into perspective: In 1998 Windows 98 would've an been up-to-date operating system, but by today's standards it's far behind. Standards have changed. I think Wikipedia adminship should have a higher qualifying standard as Wikipedia improves.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just not sure how your oppose can be partially based on the concerns raised by Keepscases, when it seems from this commentary that you want him to act arrogant. TCN7JM 11:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not what you do, but who you know? That explains a few things around here, perhaps... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DrumstickJuggler: your two analogies are completely off the mark. Adding more administrators is not like overstaffing a company, it's like sharing specific tasks among a larger group of employees. This makes perfect sense because a) you don't want your employees to get frustrated because they're stuck with doing the same thing 24/7 and b) if the number of people who can do a certain task gets too small, then there's a risk that these people will abuse that power. As for you second metaphor, the job description for admins hasn't changed and the qualities required for a good admin haven't changed. Only the RfA standards have changed. In other words, you don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a 16-core supercomputer running Windows 8 if all you want to do is play PacMan. Pichpich (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctant oppose - The candidate has lots of experience, and I almost wanted to support him. But based on his answers to Q7 and Q8, I think it will be best for him to stalk admins first, learn more about the job, see how things are done and discussed, before coming back for a 2nd RfA.
    Arctic Kangaroo 06:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand the reasoning here. He said he didn't know much about user discipline areas, but that he would be willing to learn and would spend time in discussions about the issues before engaging in admin tasks in those areas. Isn't that the same thing you're advocating, but just after he's already made an admin? Why should he have to be familiar with all admin tasks if he doesn't have an interest in doing user discipline stuff at the moment? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per nominator, but weak. There seems to be little development of quality articles or extended interaction with other editors. The candidate showed admirable soft-spoken leadership at Talk:Murder_of_Emily_Sander/Archive_1. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oppose per nominator"? You're against granting Paul the sysop bit primarily because he was nominated by Go Phightins? Kurtis (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish people who are temporarily unable to read & write would stop commenting. Please read what I wrote and strike your question. I did not write "primarily", so please double strike your false imputation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, your rationale is very confusing and an explanation is in order. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confused, but I cannot help you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apparently am also "temporarily unable to read or write" as well. Could you please elaborate? It it something in the nomination statement?Tazerdadog (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are writing just fine. The nomination was fluff and written in a breezy style; also, the nominator had written a nomination also for Automatic Strikeout, so his endorsement raises questions for me (and many other editors). Accepting such a nomination and nominator says something, like John McCain's making Sarah Palin the VP nominee. The "per nominator" would have been better if you could have seen the twinkle in my eye and heard me chuckle like a Santa Claus.
    Please focus on my other comments about the candidate. I mentioned a concern (about lack of experience writing or discussing high quality articles on traditional encyclopedia content) and at least one moment of strength, and clarify that my oppose is weak. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that you had used the word "primarily", but when you say "oppose per nominator", it establishes that particular aspect of your rationale as the most significant factor in your ultimate decision. Your explanation does very little to clear things up; why is Go Phightins's previous nomination of AutomaticStrikeout an indicator of poor judgment? And using the John McCain/Sarah Palin analogy is simply misguided, particularly considering how she is a bumbling buffoon, whereas the nominator of this RfA is not. Kurtis (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth mentioning that Kiefer Wolfowitz is currently blocked from editing and can not respond here to questions or criticism. A response to Kurtis has been posted here. My76Strat (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks My76Strat. I don't really get Kiefer's brand of humour, but he has his opinion and I have mine. Kurtis (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I don't know Paul McDonald, nor can I recall any past interaction with him, but I'm just not getting the warm fuzzy feeling that I like to have about candidates that I support. Some of my feelings echo Secret's neutral vote below. Some of it is per Paul's answers to my questions 9-11. None of the 3 questions were actually answered. Answers were given, but not to the questions asked. I don't know if this is caused by a lack of competence (i.e., an inability to understand the question that was asked), or if it some kind of attempt to be political by dodging the questions, or some other reason. The answers to questions 5, 7, and 12 are similarly uninspiring, and in some cases, concerning. Overall, I feel that the candidate's approach to adminship lacks seriousness and maturity. Maybe it's just my personality clashing with his, I don't know, but I feel I can't support this one. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 22:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, the answer to question 9 is basically "your question is kind of silly so I'll politely ignore it". I can see how you might not like that answer but it seems pretty spot on to me. Inclusionist and deletionist are two equally coarse and increasingly divisive labels. Forcing someone to choose one or the other is counterproductive. Pichpich (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I planned to stay neutral while mentioning my main concern of Paul below, as I dealt with him in the past as we have the same interests, but the answers to Scottywong questions just doesn't feel right. He kept mentioning his track record on AFD (which is one of the more flip-floppy I've seen from an editor during my time on Wikipedia) instead of directly answering the questions, even the very opinionated ones that shouldn't be counted against an editor. The answer to question 15 is simply way off and just about confirms my WP:SUPERVOTE concerns. Also read my original comment listed in the now indented neutral. As someone who closed policy-based AFDs on a regular basis, I can't support. Sorry. Secret account 02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. oppose 55% article space is a good mix alrady. given user's penchant for afd etc, the mop/bucket/badge thing will paradoxically make the user less productive. ... aa:talk 02:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a good reason to oppose, isn't it? hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 06:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. answers to questions are underwhelming. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. The answer to Q11 in particular is quite confrontational and sarcastic. Also, when a comment is made with a rationale, to reply as here, with "I think you're over-thinking it" and no rationale, is a cheap put-down, not a reply at all. And using the WP:SOFIXIT shortcut to WP:BB is a way of saying "put up or shut up". Said to someone who has spent most of his Wikipedia career helping other editors get their FAs and GAs and working to clear the copyedit backlogs, "WP:SOFIXIT" is just rude. This is the sort of holier-than-thou attitude we need to keep out of the admin corps. --Stfg (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I read his "WP:SOFIXIT" comment as his rationale for correcting your spelling, rather than a cheap put-down. Pol430 talk to me 13:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Generally speaking, the oppose section seems to be reaching. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pol430, perhaps you think that Paul needs you to speak on his behalf? You replied to something other than what I said, but congratulations on getting so much mileage out of a typo. Few can accomplish so much. --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, I was simply suggesting that he may not have intended any snark towards you and that his SOFIXIT comment may not have had the meaning you attribute to it. I assure you my comment was sincere. Pol430 talk to me 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks. I'm sorry for having misunderstood you. --Stfg (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I should add that, although I regret biting you, Pol430, I won't be changing this !vote. Even ignoring the SOFIXIT, the rest of his reply is quite snotty, and since it's partly an amplification of sofixit, I find it hard to read the SOFIXIT as relating to the typo, which could even have been allowed to stand. If it was intended that way, at best it's a very careless miscommunication. Likewise the reply to Q11. If this in RfA week, what when there's no more sanction? --Stfg (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While there are many good reasons for supporting expressed above, I am swayed by the comments of Scottywong which align with my own general impressions. Couple these with Keepscases observation of a potential for narcissism, which I see evidenced in many of his answers to questions, and the candidate becomes a nominee I am unable to support. I do however, wish him the best, and respect the emerging consensus that isn't swayed by similar reservations. My76Strat (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

# At this point I'm neutral per the concerns raised by Keepscases above and pending an answer to my question.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, nearing Support Will wait for candidate to answer the few questions first. Arctic Kangaroo 03:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I had my fair share of conversations with Paul, usually on the disagreeing side of things and he strikes me as a person who is patient, civil with some common sense, but very erratic with his opinion of policy and guidelines, especially when it comes to sourcing and BLP. I've seen Paul comment keep on AFDs that has very little sourcing and doesn't meet any guidelines, and delete on articles that clearly meet GNG with decent sourcing and vice versa. The percentage range is slightly misleading because he swings easily in AFD, especially when consensus becomes clearer. I can't oppose because I'm COI here in a way, but I can't trust him closing AFDs as I see him as an editor who would do a WP:SUPERVOTE to define consensus. Sorry. Secret account 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to oppose. Secret account 02:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral The candidate's responses to questions 7 and 12 cause me some concern but I'm willing to be swayed (his edit history, content creation, lack of blocks, and commitment to the project are admirable). The candidate wants to be an administrator and has a long and significant edit history but in his response to question 7 he stated that he doesn't "really know other admins on Wikipedia". I find that amazing considering the amount of edits and interactions he has accumulated. Also, the candidate seems to want to be more active in the AfD process but in his response to question 12 he stated that the only times he would want to make a non-admin closure of a deletion discussion are discussions in which he has participated. I don't entirely understand why he wouldn't be interested in making an effort to branch out and try closing other discussions to learn the process, if he wants to become an admin to work on the AfD backlog. I would be more comfortable supporting this candidate if he cleared up these potential contradictions. Such an explanation might also illuminate a why this editor would be not be a concern for making a WP:SUPERVOTE, as outlined by Secret, above. - tucoxn\talk 22:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. See question 4. I'm not going to oppose someone because he wrote an essay I don't like. But I do hope that Paul will not override a clear consensus because that consensus is based on an interpretation of policy considered valid by the community but not by him. Based on his personality, I don't think he will. Chick Bowen 21:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I've always found him to be clear and cordial, and wish him the best on his imminent approval. I did notice in the past that he his AfD !votes involving quarterbacks in college football leaned on the more liberal side when only trivial/routine coverage existed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan LaSecla, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myles Eden, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Rogers. I trust he would be able to read consensus and avoid a WP:SUPERVOTE, or just stick with participating and not closing in these rare cases. His general track record seems excellent otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Paulmcdonald&oldid=1145829993"