Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47 4

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

ST47

[edit]

Final (31/36/6); Ended 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ST47 (talk · contribs) - I am very pleased to nominate this user for adminship, he is a dedicated vandal/spam fighter who I respect very much. This user has amassed over 10,000 edits and is email enabled. I have seen this user frequently at the AIV and I find that his reports are accurate. This user also has a high percentage of edit summaries, something that is often overlooked. ST47 is also a good contributer to the wikispace. All in all I find that this user has greatly improved since his last RFA (s) and it is time to give em' the mop. I have no doubt this will be a good admin, Cheers. ~ Arjun 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs)

Arjun01 pretty much said it all. However, I'd like to doubly recommend this user for adminship. He has massive contributions toward fighting spam and vandalism, both essential and very useful characteristics. He is always civil and calm, and with over 12,000 edits he has a large amount of experience. I believe he would serve the community excellently as an administrator.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks to you both for the nominations, I accept. ST47Talk 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I answer any questions, there are a few things I want to say. First, about my previous RfAs. First, I believe not that I jumped the gun and did it way too early to gain the community's trust. I have improved my civility and understanding of policy since my second. I declined my 3rd nomination a few weeks ago because of school, I just didn't have enough time because of several not-quite-midterms. (I passed them all, yay!)

Arjun01, thank you so much for the nomination! I'd just like to note a few more things: I have had 2 previous RfAs (1|2), and one nomination(here), I run 5 bots, STBot, who does categorization and template work using AWB, STBotD, who does interwiki stuff daily, STBotT, which tags (or will tag, once it is approved, currently in trial) new pages without categories or wikilinks, and SWMTBots 5 and 6, who watch about 100 wikis each for vandalism, I am registered for VP, AWB, and Spamda (a great tool), and I'm always on IRC to help out. I run 2 audio streams for WikiCast, which is a free-content audio broadcast, I am subscribed to unblock-en-l and I watch CAT:RFU, even as a non-administrator. For more information on off-wiki stuff, visit User:ST47/WhatIDo, there's an editcounter on my userpage, and my archives are linked as well. ST47Talk 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a few links:


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I can contribute in many areas, many of which I already have some experience in. I have an account on the test wiki, so you can be sure I won't mess any blocks up and end up blocking 0.0.0.0/0, which is a good thing for any administrator to avoid doing. I have XfD experience, both closing to get an idea of how to do it, the process, and contributing to discussions. I have some CSD experience, which you can't see from my contribs, but the mass talk page exodus of early January 2007 was my fault. Requested moves, requests for page protection are both harmless areas where I can get the feel of deletion and protection. I'd stalk AIV on the IRC feed, and I am always available on IRC, or through my email, which I may have mentioned earlies, but is EN.WP.ST47 on gmail. I would be active on the various Administrator's Noticeboards, which I already watch a few times a week, and the mailing lists, especially unblock-en-l. I can help just about anywhere the backlog is, and in time-sensitive areas, especially the Requests for Unblock, where there are live people why want something fixed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, getting 1,000 talk pages speedied was fun :D Mostly I just enjoy doing maintenance work and cleanup. I've also removed a few large groups of spam links to myspace and flickr, and I try to stay on the lookout for typos. I like my idea for User:STBotT, which it the one who looks through new pages and tags them for maintenance, which helps cleanup people.
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: A few weeks ago, there was something weird going on with STBot, probably involving the category->article list maker, which resulted in a block against the bot, bot not a dispute as much as having to clean up stuff. I attempted mediation earlier this year, I won't be trying that again - I find it amazing that there are people who feel so strongly that they would argue their point so strongly to fix up an article. I have a few other subjects of edit warring on my watchlist, and I hate when they do that, it definitely isn't helping the wiki. Stress-wise, after my last RfA I stormed off, one could say, but that was 3 months ago now. I try to avoid conflicts, I suppose, my opinion being, if they feel so strongly about, that, perhaps they're right, and that helps, and then I can go and get something done rather than get in to an argument about whether the third sentence of the second paragraph of Microsoft is really written from the Neutral Point of View.


Optional question from ST47 (talk · contribs)(do I get to answer my own question?)
4. You've been here for months, made thousands of edits, and devoted hundreds of hours to Wikipedia without pay or and tangible reward. Above you said why you wanted to be an admin, but why do you want to be a Wikipedian? What was your motivation for joining, and for staying?
A: Well, ST47, that's a great question. I first joined because I noticed a few errors around the place, but then was inactive for a while. In August of last year, I was working on another wiki, mostly cleanup and vandal patrol, and I realized that I was bored. I came to Wikipedia "just for 15 minutes", and was instantly amazed at the rate of edits on recent changes. I logged in and started reverting by hand. In time, I realized that there were easier ways, and I got popups and requested access to VP (I think I had to apply twice). Eventually, I got on IRC and got access to AWB, started running bots, and recently began work on spam cleanup (I am approved for the beta of m:Spamda) and some new RC tools (WP:TWINKLE). I suppose I just want to have a place to go and feel welcome and like I am helping someone.
Optional question from YechielMan (talk · contribs)
5. You wrote above that you tagged 1000 talk pages for speedy deletion. Could you please explain what that was all about?
A: In early January, I did a database scan using AWB for a list of talk pages without article pages, I got several thousand. I plugged them into AWB (I am approved on my main account) and went through them, one at a time, for about 2 weeks, slowly to avoid overloading CAT:CSD. They were mostly talk pages that the author had contested a deletion on after the article had been deleted. There were a few redirects to archives that I also speedied as redirects from alternate spellings, but those were declined, probably as having incoming links.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle101 Need help?

6. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. You can have a look at the full counter spam efforts on meta at m:User:Eagle 101/Spam.
A: Well, spam is pretty bad. As you know, I live in the spam channels and I also use georgemoney's tool to remove lots of links to myspace and the like recently. I believe that our standards are good, but possibly slack. WP:EL doesn't actually say "don't do this", it just says to avoid certain things. Flickr and imageshack, for example, are often linked to incorrectly, such as to a user's gallery or to results of a search, and we have no control over what images are uploaded. Links to individual images are OK, if necessary, however if I was making an article, I would rather upload it, if possible, or if not, replace it. Of course, that is not possible sometimes, and then I'd rather not have an image at all unless it in absolutely necessary. Also, we have many links to myspace, which is also a rather unstable medium: Not only is there not as much identity verification as on wikipedia, it violates another section of WP:EL by containing what is often used as a discussion form. I don't deal with WP:RS as much, simply because of what I target, though I think it is better written than WP:EL. I have to eat dinner, and mIRC is beeping at me, so I will add a bit more later ;)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator support. You are a great user who would benefit Wikipedia even more as a sysop. Yuser31415 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support. Beat the nom support :P -- Heligoland 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Beat nom too (well, one of them)! AZ t 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nominator support :) ~ Arjun 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Another excellent candidate for the mop and bucket. A good all-round editor. (aeropagitica) 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per nom. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Great Vandal Fighter. Wikipedians contribute to Wikipedia in different ways. We should give adminship to everyone qualified and willing; no matter what way they help Wikipedia.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Admin vandal fighter per nom. alphachimp 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support = I couldn't find any substantive contributions whatsoever amidst the 10,000 or so automated edits, but I don't see any reason not to trust him with the tools. Proto ► 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Remembered the reason not to. Changed to oppose. Proto ► 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. After combing through this editor's contributions, I'd say he is ready for the mop. I was also really impressed by how ST47 sought feedback from people who opposed his last RfA. That shows significant growth.--Alabamaboy 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support needs the tools, has addressed all concerns in thelast RfA. Good luck. ViridaeTalk 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - he'd be a great mop and is clearly dedicated. his criteria all meet my standards, get him on board! JoeSmack Talk 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I see no evidence he would abuse the tools. Give them to this puppy. PigmanTalk to me 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! ST47Talk 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support You seem to be a good user, but I don't quite see why you need the tools. However, I see no real reason not to let you have 'em. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - no reason has been articulated not to trust the user with the tools. This is RFA, not editor review. --BigDT 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I trust him with the tools, but do not see the need. Considering his case, though, that alone is no reason to not give support. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment - it greatly distresses me every time I see an RFA like this one. We are deciding whether or not we trust ST47 to not misuse three buttons. That's it. This isn't a review of his articles, or lack thereof. This isn't a critique of how he spends his time on Wikipedia. There is one and only one question - can we trust that he would not misuse the admin buttons. Nobody has given a reason not to trust him. "He doesn't write enough articles" isn't a reason. An RFA is more analagous to "Requests for janitorship" than it is "Request for editor-in-chiefship". I would strongly encourage those who comment on this RFA and future ones like it to seriously consider that we have a severe shortage of active admins and it does nothing to help Wikipedia when we exclude hard workers from adminship. --BigDT 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I ask: Will this editor use the tools? Answer here is absolutely, no doubt about it. I also ask Will this editor abuse the tools? Answer this time isn't quite so clear to me: as ST47 has close to zero article contributions, I cannot see how he would cope with a protect button in an edit war. What constitutes an edit war? You could just look it up, but with zero experience of article conflict we might as well give the protect button to a brand new user. ST47 seems to think that protections are harmless, when in fact I do a lot of protections, and I think they cause me the most grief. Misunderstandings like these, and others, lead me to believe that ST47 will abuse the tools, not intentionally, but because of inexperience.  Majorly (o rly?) 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We all learn from experience. Anyone who is a new admin should let a more experienced admin handle the tougher issues - be they requests for protection, AIV reports, whatever. I handled a lot of WP:RFP requests my first week, but all of them were the blatantly obvious ones where a page was being vandalized repeatedly from multiple sources or, in the case of the negative, where the request was incorrect and protection was unneeded or the user didn't understand what protection was. No admin knows everything from day one. Heck, the first time I hit the block button, I was scratching my head looking at the three checkboxes wondering whether to select them or not. And goodness knows, I'm glad I had seen a message that Cyde left for another new admin about accidentally leaving in the default deletion summary when deleting an attack page, or I'd probably have made that mistake. Nobody knows everything. Nobody is going to work in every single area of adminning. The important things are trustworthiness, a willingness to learn, the ability to communicate and explain your actions, and a willingness to say "I'm sorry" and correct a mistake if you make one. When you hire a person for a job, you aren't always going to get someone with 10 years of experience doing exactly what your company does - you are hiring on potential. If ST47 has never been involved in an edit war ... ok ... someone may need to work with him on hitting the protect button if and when that issue arises. But there is enough of a body of work to know that ST47 can be trusted ... and that's what matters. --BigDT 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. G.He 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support two great nominators, and a very useful editor. The Rambling Man 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support (but keep in mind that RFA sucks and that we should think about new ways of getting new admins). Jon Harald Søby 10:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support Only problem here is that you haven't made any article work. You seem like a dedicated Wikpedian and vandal-fighter, which is why I support you. - Anas Talk? 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Technically proficient. YechielMan 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support hell if you want to oppose him for not writing articles you my as well desysop me because 'I do not write articles, I cannot write articles, I will never start writing them' if you want you can check my contribs. there are more than one kind of wikipedian. Most admins need to work on other stuff than article writing. I have no FA's GA's or anything else. I use AWB, VP, and other tools. just because man invented the wheel to make travel easier man invented tools to help edit wikipedia. We need more non writing admins to help clear the backlogs Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And we all know that you've been in trouble for speedy username blocks recently. Which was my other concern, that ST47 would be too quick and not think when performing an admin action; much like you it seems. And let's all remember this isn't your RfA. --Majorly (o rly?) 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you might want to review WP:NPA as all my actions have solid ground. I know this is not my RfA. Mine passed a long time ago. I was trying to make a WP:POINT with my statement that not all good users write articles sometimes we need wikignomes as admins too. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if you felt I attacked you, which I can assure you I did not intend. --Majorly (o rly?) 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool it, guys. No reason to go mad about what constitutes a good admin. That's a bit of an opinionated topic to argue over. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - The only concerns I can see here are a lack of article writing, but let us not forget that our admin backlogs have absolutely nothing to do with writing articles. I'm supporting on the basis that if given the mop, this ST47 will use it only in areas that he is familiar with. If this admin only clears backlogs, then thats less backlogs for me to clear :P. After all, we must remember adminship is not a big deal. Regards —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) While I still think he would do a good job with the backlogs, I don't think actions that ST47 has done on the RFA are what we want in an admin. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support ~Crazytales !!! 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -- Tawker 07:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I trust the candidate to behave responsibly with the tools. PeaceNT 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support GeorgeMoney (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Clearly dedicated to the project, and we could use help with backlogs. User has said he would get help from other admins if he comes across a situation he's unprepared for. --Fang Aili talk 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I think the user will be responsible Corpx 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support per nom >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Full support - has my trust. —METS501 (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak support, need more experience as an editor. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Looks good enough to me.--R613vlu 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose The lack of article writing is a concern, as well as the civility issues brought up during the previous RfA. I'll be the first to admit that I had a tough go of scrutinising the candidate's contributions given the enormous amount of automated edits, so if I misread the answer to Q2 or missed some article writing or successful mediations, I'd appreciate if someone pointed me in the right direction. gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But ask yourself, has he addressed these concerns since then? He was given feedback, and if he seems to have addressed the concerns raised then woldn't it b fair to support him now, or atleastnot oppose on those grounds. ViridaeTalk 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears as if he's fallen quite short in addressing any previous concerns about article writing; in fact, he seems to eschew contributing content to the encyclopedia, which is, of course, why people begin editing in the first place. As the candidate made the proffered edit earlier today, his curiously overt disregard for article contributions appears to have only escalated since his previous RfA's. In as far as the civility concerns, the behaviour demonstrated during the previous RfA was extremely poor and I've yet to see any experience or successes in mediation or dispute resolution (though, again, the mass quantities of automated edits have made it difficult to wade through ST47's contributions, and I may have missed something). A good-natured and easily approachable demeanour is essential for any candidate. Thanks for your comment; it is a testament to your faith and support in the candidate gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the reason is that I have no disputes to resolve? I promise to stop replying to you after this, but isn't it true that it's the vandal fighters who need the tools, rather than the mediators or writers? While the respect an admin would get would be helpful to mediation, and while we do need writers, we need members of all three of those areas; writers, mediators, and janitors, and without any one of those, thist project would have failed from the beginning. A good mediator must be able to see the truth behind POV and must edit talk pages of articles undergoing an edit war, a good writer must work towards good or featured articles and must have good grammar, must not a janitor work towards cleaning up vandalism and spam, through automation or through manual work, and must not hehave the tools and skills to do so? ST47Talk 02:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those that simply tag pages for deletion and run a program to revert vandalism do not generally possess the interpersonal skills that are honed by collaborating with other members of the community on articles, content issues, WikiProjects, etc. As mentioned earlier, I feel that a successful administrator needs to be at least moderately well-rounded and certainly have added some content to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community, and I don't see you working to build either one; as such, I don't feel at all comfortable entrusting you with more buttons. gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to strongly disagree. I am a janitor like ST47, and I feel that I have no problem communicating with anyone on the project. Indeed, my work in antivandalism and new pages patrol led me into far more dispute situations than a good article writer should ever get into. We have grown large enough that not everyone of our hundreds of thousands of members has to be an editor. Janitorial work keeps the place in tip top condition, or at least trys to, and this janitor has certainly demonstrated the need for the tools. Some admins still spend the majority of their time writing the encyclopedia, others do not (like myself). Having dealt directly with the kind of work that ST47 is indicating he wants to do, I can honestly say that I think he will be up to the task. ViridaeTalk 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per two major issues: zero article writing and failure to address in any way the monumental concerns raised in the previous RfA. I see a boatload of vandalism and external link reversion, but you don't need administrator access for that. Not a trophy. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but there are a few reasons I would need administrative tools - blocking, protection, both directly related to vandalism ST47Talk 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - answer to Q2 is not satisfactory and the irreverence towards actively improving content seems inappropriate. I did look through your edits back to October and didn't see anything that wasn't a software assisted vandal revert or AWB machine edit, and I feel that everyone needs to actually tweak the main body of the content etc, to get experience with fixing up NPOV at the very least, even if they are poor writers. Aside from that, mostly AfD pile-ons, templated messages,. Given that he spammed about 500+ usertalk pages with welcome messages just days before his last RfA, I am concerned about his attitude to quality control and product management. Q2 is somewhat ironic when the candidate used AWB machine edits to tag about 10 talk pages for deletion in succession, all of which were turned down. [1]. I'd like to see more quality contribs like NPOV cleanups, original debate at AfD etc, and an active demonstration of wisdom, and less things like those AWB CSD tagging. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your list speedies - that's 10 out of well over 1000, and those were kept because I didn't realize what the were. I think I have new questions up there about that, so that will explain what that was all about. ST47Talk 11:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose. I am not very impressed by several things. You seem to do mostly semiautomatic or automatic things without enough thought beforehand. Examples are the speedy tagging of talk page redirects above and also some of your bot's WikiProject taggings, where you apparently use the category system to decide whether a page should belong to a WikiProject or not. As the category system is not a tree and also sucks quite bad, this leads to many mistakes. (Probably the WikiProjects asking for the tagging also didn't think before requesting your bot's assistance, so it is not your fault alone - however, several Wikiprojects have tagged articles using your bot, and there seem to have been problems several times). When your edits are non-automated, you almost never leave an edit summary. I can't really tell whether your speedy deletion nominations have improved since your last RfA (at that time many were bad and WP:BITEish) or whether you have simply stopped tagging pages for speedy deletion. The answer to Q1 is what leads me to oppose: you treat WP:RM and WP:RFPP as "harmless". That seems to be where your lack of writing experience as mentioned by Blnguyen comes in: apparently you haven't seen complicated edit wars where it is hard to decide whether to protect or not, and haven't been involved in complicated move discussions involving several conflicting policies, POV pushing, sockpuppetry and questions about the validity of different polling styles (read the archives of Talk:Jogaila or whatever the article's name is today for some taste of it). I am confident that you won't abuse the tools deliberately, but I don't think you have the experience necessary to work in the areas you mentioned. Kusma (討論) 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I can avoid big arguments, or seek guidance from other administrators. Not every candidate is going to have perfect experience everywhere, and any new administrator wouldn't just jump into making such controversial decisions without seeking guidance from others - that's done even by experienced administrators. There are a few kinds of work ad admin can do, repetitive and un-opposed maintenance or controversial decisions. I tried to show above that I wouldn't do anything controversial, I mentioned discussion with other administrators who are more experienced, and the fact is that we need administrators who would consistently do the boring, repetitive, unopposed cleanup work and not start to go inactive after a month or two. CAT:CSD was empty a few weeks ago, because of a discussion on the RFA talk page, and now we're back up to 150 pages. I can look at the user creation log right now and see in the last 50, one possible notable person who needs their identity confirmed and 3 blatantly inappropriate usernames. If I look in the IRC recentchanges I see 2 or 3 vandal edits on each page, without even looking at the diffs. There are currently 8 users and ips on WP:AIV. There are 7 users in CAT:RFU. I can help with any of those that you all trust me to, and I can stay away from anything you ask me to stay away from, but we can't just ignore the growing backlogs. ST47Talk 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I think you might be a little fast with the delete button, and I did not like your original answer to Q2 - "don't write, can't write, won't write". Sorry. Majorly (o rly?) 13:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Should I be writing? We do need writers, but as I said above, is that all we need? Everyone makes mistakes, and we learn from them, that's why we have WP:DRV and that's why we have the {{unblock}} templates, and if I do delete 100 articles from CSD and remove the tags from 10, that's 2/3s of the backlog gone, in, say, 2 hours. Let's say one of them gets DRVed. Whether the DRV is right or not, it takes 1 person 5 minutes to post it, 10 people 1 minute each to comment, and 1 admin 2-3 minutes to close it. Is that a fair trade? Every admin action can be reverted by any other admin, if need be. ST47Talk 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you should be writing, this is an online encyclopedia... I don't necessarily want a featured article, or even a good one, but I'd like at least something decent... surely you didn't register to tag pages and revert vandalism? Also I thought the original answer sounded stubborn, which isn't a good sign in any editor let alone an admin. And yes, mistakes can be reversed, but imho it's better they aren't made in the first place. --Majorly (o rly?) 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mabye I did. I registered here because I was getting bored with how slow the vandalism was on this other wiki and because it was under control, I really became active again in the beginning of August, and here are a few of my edits in that first hour: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ST47Talk 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I've never run into you, but I have to oppose based on Kusma's point, that you believe WP:RM to be "harmless." You must not have experience with the bitter feelings and bad blood that move requests can generate. The lack of article writing is another minus, but if it was just that, I would probably have skipped this RfA. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply to kusma, where I said that I can avoid that or get opinions of others. If you don't trust me to make tough decisions, say so, and I won't. But you can't say that we do not need more admins, and you can't downplay the backlog. ST47Talk 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I'm not a stickler for article-writing by any means, since I really only copyedit, but the original answer to Q2, pointed out by Majorly, almost showed disdain for article writing. That's an indicator of bad judgment, and enough to have me worried about the candidate. Xoloz 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows that I think I can't write. I've tried editing articles a few times, and I never get too far. I never meant to oppose anyone who writes articles, as without them, we don't have an encyclopedia. I'm saying that I won't be writing, and that as an administrator, I'm not going to start. ST47Talk 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose; seems to think that adminship is a trophy. Ral315 » 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get that idea? I think that adminship is a bonus set of tools and utilities for people who can use them, and that the lack of ability to use a certain tool shouldn't preclude the use of any other tool: if you need a set of screwdrivers and a wrench, would you refuse to buy any set that contains a hammer, simply because you won't need it? ST47Talk 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose, changed from weak support. I remembered where I saw the name; user was removing external links to images and citing WP:EL as the guideline for doing so ([11]), when the guideline didn't contain a single mention of such acts. When I brought this up with him, he suggested I upload a copyrighted non-fair use image. ([12]) I can't trust someone with such a poor grasp of image policy with the admin tools. Proto ► 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgraded (downgraded?) to strong oppose, as he doesn't seem able to handle criticism well. Proto ► 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    26 Wikipedians have said here that they do not trust me, after 7 months and over 50000 helpful contributions, mostly for reasons I disagree with. Is it a crime to say why I disagree with them? ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Writing articles isn't incidental, it's the defining characteristic of a Wikipedian. And, well, I'd prefer our admins to be Wikipedians, not wetware implementations of AntiVandalBot. That's not to denigrate your other contributions in any way, but do try to do some editorial work. Sandstein 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll quote from the caption in the essay WP:AAAD: In deciding whether to give Wikipe-tan a mop, our question should be whether she can clean stuff up, not whether she is a published novelist - Is there really a reason why that is incorrect and should not apply here? ST47Talk 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I think what I would have said has been covered by everyone else here. Cliffsnotes version: Without any actual article editing, I don't know how you can handle dispute resolution, since you really need some prior experience dealing with article discussion and disputes, etc. Nishkid64 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Strong oppose. STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE. I really do prefer admins to have at least some experience in article writing. Not necessarily writing an article from scratch, but some sort of contribution in that area. The article writing process is a great way to see how disputes can crop up, and how they can hopefully be resolved. While I understand that admins will have their own strengths and weaknesses, I also think that they should generally be good at doing more than just one or two things. I also want to point out that answering every/nearly every oppose vote makes you seem defensive and raises questions about your ability to handle criticism. It is of course your right to respond, but that's the impression that I get. Admins get a lot of criticism, both from non-admins as well as from fellow admins, and it is essential to be able to handle that stress. I hope you're not discouraged by this feedback. If you address these concerns, I might support you in the future. --Kyoko 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my opinion from "Oppose" to "Strong oppose", based upon the candidate's increasingly adversarial responses to various opposers, above and below my prior opinion. This reinforces my doubts about the candidate's ability to handle stress, especially given the heated tone of his comments. I feel that trust goes above and beyond any other prerequisite for an administrator. While I admire his dedication to the project, right now, I simply can't trust this user to use the admin tools properly, based upon his comments here. Sorry. --Kyoko 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my opinion again, from "Strong oppose" to "STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE" based on this diff, where the candidate erased my earlier comment, as well as another person's comment. This only confirms my feeling that this candidate cannot be trusted with the admin tools. If this candidate is willing to delete comments about him on his own RfA, simply because he disagrees with them, I shudder to think what he might do if he were permitted to block users and delete pages at will. I've tried to be nice, and I do wish you would continue your anti-vandalism efforts, but I absolutely cannot trust you with the sysop tools at this time. Please think about what your opposers have said, and try to understand why they might be concerned. I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings, but I do have a responsibility to Wikipedia as a whole. --Kyoko 04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's striking how he calls us mindless drones in the edit summary where he exhorts us to think deeply about how his poorly-executed point wasn't a personal attack at all. Cool Hand Luke 10:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - there are simply too many concerns raised above for me to be able to support this candidate; on top of that, I offered to nominate ST47 for the extra buttons around 2 weeks ago, and he/she declined. I can't see what has changed in 14 days. On the basis of previous concerns by my fellow Wikipedians, and the rapid turnaround in desire for the Mop, I would like to firstly respectfully voice my concerns (i.e. oppose at this time) and secondly wish this Wikipedian all the best. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify why ST47 declined his 3rd RfA nomination, he said in his RfA acceptance that this was due to a timing conflict with exams, and that he was accepting the current nomination now that those exams are over. --Kyoko 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and this argument could be turned around to ask what could have changed in two weeks to cause him to switch from nom to oppose. This and the "just three months" arguments struck me as weak grounds for opposition, though there are plenty of other reasons. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Gaillimh, lack of content contribution (which wouldn't be enough to oppose for me by itself), and the civility concerns raised in the last (very recent) RFA. It also concerns me that the candidate has felt a need to respond to so many editors that have opposed. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't concern you, as this is a discussion. -- Majorly (o rly?) 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And me replying to people who disagree with me is a problem how. Let's do away with WP:AFD, since the whole process is usually people disagreeing with one another. And let's do away with the oppose section on RfAs, since you're disagreeing with the nominator. ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it almost inevitably leads to confrontation and incivility, as it has in this rfa. One can respond to opposition tactfully and tactically without responding to nearly every point of opposition, continually repeating oneself in doing so. It brings up questions regarding judgment in my mind to do so. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose the original answer to question 2 leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and the responses to question 4 and to Majorly's oppose #5 don't help. You registered here because there wasn't enough vandalism on another wiki? It all gives a sense that Wikipedia is an MMORPG and if you whack enough vandals you level up. I don't think you have enough experience dealing with content to make content-related administrative decisions. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was bored. I wasn't needed. There are more admins than vandals there. Let's do the math here. 1000 admins and how many blocks have been performed here? ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Not a big fan of people who close contested Afd debates, which you seem to have done multiple times. Also not a big fan of hasty "delete per nom" votes, especially this close to your RFA. --- RockMFR 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No not only are we allowed to disagree with people, as Jersyko believes, but we aren't allowed to agree with them either? ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Too much badgering of opposers (and please note, I will increase my opposition if you badger this vote). Scobell302 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully this comment will get ignored then, as this is not a vote, nor is the concern raised anything to do with the candidates ability as an administrator.  Majorly (o rly?) 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? If this is not a vote, what are we counting at the top of this nomination? Sheep? Sandstein 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Strong oppose Answer to Q2 did not satisfy me. I made a quick search of the candidate's article experience, and it appears that the article the candidate has edited the most was Awards and decorations of the military of Sri Lanka with 11 edits with no edit summaries, I'm not impressed. Switched to strong oppose per the candidate's uncivil remarks towards some of the opposers in this RfA. Dionyseus 05:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, that was over 5 months ago, probably longer. Second, I SAID in the answer that I don't write articles. I believe I said that I won't be writing as an admin, so that shouldn't concern you. ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose anyone who thinks getting a thousand pages speedied is "fun". I do newpage patrol, I've placed plenty of speedy tags, but it's not fun. A lot of times, it pisses people off or hurts them when they don't understand why their garage band article or personal homepage can't be here, and you have to handle them with care, and sometimes, tolerate some abuse from them. It's necessary, but it's not a game. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that you cannot handle such a joke as that. I was sitting in front of AWB for two weeks, do you think it was fun? Second, I was talking about talk pages there, no one is going to care if a talk page to a non-existent article is deleted, unless it's an archive. ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose- Not suitable for admin- has zero experience of writing articles. Astrotrain 09:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I don't write, I suppose I can't be trusted to click buttons, I see your point, it is a challenging task requiring an intimate understanding of the process of writing an article. ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Before I read this, I was inclined to support, but I was obviously mistaken. Too many real concerns raised by Proto, Kusma, Opabinia regalis, and others, to support at this time. "I find it amazing that there are people who feel so strongly that they would argue their point so strongly to fix up an article". That says it all really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that says nothing. All these people coming together to wikipedia with no reward whatsoever in the kind of world we are in in nothing short of astounding. Am I wrong? Are we giving people incentives to edit now? ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering whether or not this was a rhetorical question. I'll answer it anyway. My personal reasons for contributing to Wikipedia, without any pay or recognition, is basically due to a belief that knowledge should be freely accessible, combined with the idea that my own small efforts are helping to build something much greater than what I or anyone else could do alone. I suppose you could phrase that as wanting to belong to something greater than just myself. I also want to share the knowledge that I have in the hopes that other people might benefit from it. There's also the pride in seeing an article that you started or worked on grow and even become a Good or Featured Article. I take pride in my writing, anyway. Finally, I suspect that for many people here, Wikipedia gives them a creative outlet that they otherwise lack in everyday life. I guess all of the reasons I've given here are basically emotional ones, but the fulfillment of emotional needs can be just as rewarding as anything tangible.
    My point is that for a number of reasons, people become motivated to create and improve articles on Wikipedia. People may have different views on what constitutes a good article, and they may be emotionally attached to a particular subject or viewpoint, but the article improvement process is a gradual one that takes a lot of effort on the part of many people working together. I want to see admins who appreciate all of that, and I imagine that Angus does as well. --Kyoko 06:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC), amended 12:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The world is full of people giving up their time to this or that cause, so I don't find it at all surprising that Wikipedia attracts lots of dedicated editors, some of whom have very strong views on content. As you said, this comes down to a simple question: can you be trusted to push a couple of buttons? I'd be ok with the delete one; unlike RockMFR, I see your willingness to close XfDs now as a big plus. And the block one? I wasn't sure based on your lack of any writing experience and the answer to Q3, and I'm even less sure after reading your replies here. I'm impressed by your dedication and good work, but you need to deal better with criticism and conflict. As an admin, your decisions would regularly be second-guessed, and worse. I don't see that you'd handle that well right now. One last point: looking at Category:Wikipedia backlog, what Wikipedia really seems to need are editors willing to wikify, copyedit, categorise, help out in NPOV disputes, etc, etc. There are plenty of opportunities in the NPOV and accuracy dispute categories to get involved in conflicted situations that won't involve (much) article writing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Strong Oppose (Upgraded due to irrelevent attacks, which user asserts were really clever points that we misunderstood, entiteling him to remove comments. See Kyoko above.) We need admins, yes, and looking at RFA, we're getting several more in the next few days. Not all admins need to be article writers, but they should at least understand why someone might—say—take the time to fix up an article. User demonstrates no understanding of this perspective, and I would not trust him with admin tools. I also don't want newbie biters affixed with the community's seal of approval. Cool Hand Luke 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Oppose Strong Oppose ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I am concerned about this user's lack of experience in any areas outside of maintenance and vandal fighting. While I was leaning support at first, the two things that disturbed me most were 1) the behavioral concerns in this user's last RfA, which was only three months ago, and 2) the user's aggressive responses to oppose !votes in this RfA, which suggest to me that this issue has not been fully addressed. – Lantoka (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3 months is quite a long time ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't trust Lantoka. He has a weird name, his sig is in the font "CAC Krazy Legs Bold", and he's editing at 11 PM. I don't see why he should be allowed to help anyone to do anything, and any response by anyone to this post is clearly a sign of them being aggressive and therefore a reson to not trust him to do anything on his own for at least 6 months. ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think that response is helping your case? – Lantoka (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Changing to strong oppose per rude response. – Lantoka (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing !vote to ABSOLUTELY NOT, for what it matters. Your deletion of oppose comments on this page is inexcusable. Please withdraw. – Lantoka (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose as per aggressive comments to RfA opposition. Plus I feel that you are too trigger happy with the speedy deletions. Tagging 1000 pages for deletion shouldn't be considered "fun". Darthgriz98 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And this guy's name is Darth Griz 98. Why should I trust anyone who loves Star Wars so much to use Darth in their username? ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remain civil. Dionyseus 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And this "guy", according to her profile, is a woman. With due respect, do you ever want to become an admin? You really ought not attack people like this. People voting oppose are not necessarily denigrating your contributions to the project, and we're certainly not attacking you as a person. Please don't take it so personally. Apologize, withdraw your nomination (which at this point would show an understanding of WP:SNOW), play nice for a few months, then come back. Or don't. It's up to you, but entirely irrelevant attacks are not appreciated. Cool Hand Luke 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. No contributions means I can't trust him to have sympathy for contributors. Αργυριου (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - I feel article-writing is vital for a good admin.--Aldux 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - too many admins and admin candidates are not interested in building the encyclopedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm sure you think this is bad, but you haven't explained why. The point of RfA is to see whether a user can be trusted as an admin, how can a bureaucrat possibly tell that if you leave such a short comment it is impossible to even try to sway you? ST47Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly advise you to stop bothering the people who participate in this discussion, and to withdraw your nomination. Why exactly you think that a edit summary such as "several replies, including two to people who smell bad but cannot be allowed to answer this claim lest they lose all community trust", on your own RfA, will help change consensus in your favour, I cannot imagine. Sandstein 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And obviously, you didn't get the point. I cannot imagine how, but it seems that you think I'm just attacking everyone for no reason, rather than illustrating a point. Though, you did reply, so you are defending yourself. You must be as bad as I am! ST47Talk 03:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you are illustrating a point is exactly the problem. Please do not delete others' comments. Right now, I'd suggest you withdraw the nomination, cool down a little, and try to understand what people are telling you with their comments here. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. The incivility in responses to oppose votes alone makes me think the candidate doesn't have the judgement and even temper that every admin needs. --Zantastik talk 03:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong oppose - insufficient grasp of policy, incivility without reason, and his change to Kyoko's vote show a certain maladroitness, and no need for the tools is seen. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - Moved from neutral - Although I encourage civil & calm replies to people's opposes on RfA's (I see no harm), ST47 have been placing obvious argumentative & uncalm comments & replies throughout this RfA. If a user cannot cope with negatives in his own RfA, how can we trust him to be calm in another person's RfA or anything else for that matter. I placed my initial reasoning for my neutral stance below in the neutral section, this erratic behaviour is not fitting of an admin. Sorry man, but it's oppose from me... Spawn Man 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Civilty issues and refusal to write articles Jaranda wat's sup 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose • There are simply far too much civility and personal attack issues here. He's bordering on a block, not adminship. Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Occasional lapses in judgment are expected and forgivable. Continued misbhevaiour will be sanctioned. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, civility and personal attacks in this RfA. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose - just like Sceptre said, he's shown incivility and personal attacks even during the RfA! Sorry dude, you're not an admin candidate. - Richardcavell 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Crzrussian memorial oppose The concerns I expressed last time, viz., my perception that ST47 is disposed to apply criteria for speedy deletion too liberally (although BigDT is quite right to observe that any admin action can be undone with facility, such that we oughtn't to be too concerned about a candidate's erring from time to time, improper speedies often never again see the light of day, and so IARing is most pernicious relative to CSD), remain unallayed, and I cannot conclude with any degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of ST47's being sysopped should be positive. I am, as others, profoundly troubled by the candidate's conduct during the pendency of this RfA; even as I imagine most (all?) of his comments to be jocular in nature, I wonder whether one evidences good judgment by his repeatedly making comments that are likely to be misunderstood by many (most?) other editors, such that, the malhumor of those editors notwithstanding, the collegial collaboration on which the success of our undertakings here depends is likely to be imperiled. Joe 08:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. What exactly is a Crzrussian memorial oppose? --Hemlock Martinis 08:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Crzrussian has given up sysop status, and claims to be winding back on wikipedia duties, including abandoning the crzrussian account. - [13]. - Richardcavell 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Oppose. Deleting comments made in an RfA, let alone your own RfA, is completely unacceptable. --Hemlock Martinis 08:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Leaning towards oppose. By all that I see, you're a good candidate. However, I'm uncomfortable about this being close to exactly 3 months after a previous RfA with so many issues brought up. I also have Proto's concern, except I find it more troubling. And I reeealy don't like this. -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you are saying in that diff, but that's pretty much me. When I said that, I was planning on an RfA in a few weeks, and I was planning on it because I've noticed that there are times that I could use the tools, not because I think I deserve some sort of reward or just because I can - if you look here in my archives, you'll see that I was planning on an RfA between now and the next 2 weeks since the beginning of the month, your diff is just an example of my need to comment on everything. Regarding contributions, have a look at my answer to the second question where I mention a few long projects I was involved in. Even though you might not feel that I'm the ideal candidate, I promise to you that if I am promoted, I will not abuse the buttons and I will use them as well as I can. ST47Talk 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that you'll abuse the buttons; if I think that, then no qualification is good enough to keep me from opposing. It's just that the sum of all the things I mentioned doesn't convince me that you aren't going to cause problems as honest mistakes. I honestly doubt that the lack of my support is going to cause you not to pass, especially with the current atmosphere; the point here is really more to cause you to think about things. I just wrote three and a half lines, and I don't know why.
    Oh, and nobody's the ideal candidate. If they were, I'd have to toss in a token oppose to keep them from deciding that they're above reproach. -Amarkov moo! 02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fair enough. ST47Talk 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You said you were going to bed. OMG WE MUST STRONG OPPOSE, CANDIDATE VALUES WIKIPEDIA OVER HEALTH -Amarkov moo! 02:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Gaillimh and Amarkov. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A very enthuisatic candidate, but I do not think is prepared enough yet to handle editorial-related issues that may crop up in processes (e.g. WP:AFD). May support in future. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Needs to be a bit more well rounded. Just Heditor review 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, too many oppose reasons to support but seems like a good editor. BJTalk 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Amarkov.-- danntm T C 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral Leaning to Oppose→Changed to Oppose↑ - I'm not too sure that this user has completely learnt from his last RfA. Also, it is too close for my liking to his last RfA too. I said I'd support in the future, not the very near future. I like an all-rounded editor, but I don't think ST47 has that merit yet. I advised him to begin editing articles more frequently, but I feel my advice has gone on deaf ears. So for now, I will remain neutral, but if anything major turns up, I may switch to oppose. Sorry man, Spawn Man 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ST47_4&oldid=1147967448"