Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2

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.

WereSpielChequers[edit]

Nomination[edit]

(100/7/2); Originally scheduled to end 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) – Ok, I'm tired of reviewing great candidates and missing out on the opportunity to nominate them like I did with User:Somno, so I'm presenting before you one of the people I've been watching for a few weeks. About a month ago, I took a hint from WSC, and did a review of his CSD nominations. His work was exemplary... a person who did a great job with his CSD nominations. He didn't mistag articles or abuse the criteria, this in my opinion is a huge plus. CSD is an area where we need admins who adhere to the policies and not fly off the cuff... it is the area where an admin can do more undetected damage than the most egregious vandal.

The fact that he is a person who is engaged in CSD, and I'm sponsoring him should say something about what I think of what he does at CSD. I hate (careless) CSDers.

WSC's first RfA failed in large part because of an answer related to CSD! The question was somewhat a trick question, but I think the quality of his work there addresses that concern. The other reason why his RfA failed was because he was perceived as taking RfA as a joke. Well, it's been four months since his failed RfA---which is longer than the expected three month window. Since then he has addressed his weaknesses. In addition to these concerns, WSC has worked on a number of articles--in fact over 70% of his edits are in the article space! While he recently started using tools, interspersed in his edits are quite a few occasions where he is providing copy edit work. Eg manually improving the text, checking spelling/grammar, and generally improving articles. There were also some questions about his communication skills, I don't see that as a concern. He is very civil and sought out---including by some people from FAC.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email)

This isn't going to be anywhere near as long as I'm Spartacus! (talk · contribs), but I offered to co-nom WSC a while back after noting his improvement since his last RfA. I first encountered WSC at his previous RfA, which I voted oppose on because I felt that he really didn't take adminship seriously (despite WP:NBD). Over coming weeks and months it became clear that he took the rejection of his application to heart, and started working hard to improve on areas others faulted on him last time round (such as I'm Spartacus' noted CSD reasoning). Just over four months on, I note a user who has an excellent understanding of deletion and other administrative tasks, as well as a firmly-placed article editor. Although we differ on some issues, such as the flagged revisions proposal, this is one user I would thoroughly be content with holding the mop. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks, I accept.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'll start where I'm most experienced, blocking vandals such as the ones that I've reported to AIV and deleting pages at CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
  • I search for easily confused words like Doe snot/Does not that cause errors that spellcheckers don't pick up. Cavalry Church & Calvary Troop were good hunting grounds, as were Thier/Their, Crowed/(Crowded, Crowned, Crowd), Planed/Planned, Panting/Painting, Mowed/Moved and Formally/Formerly. Some of these take dozens of minor edits to fix - "posses " has taken hundreds of edits as there were 603 when I first trawled them and only a fifth were plurals of posse.
  • For the last few months I've been increasingly active as a reviewer and critical friend at FAC, I've probably done more article collaboration there than in article talk space. Articles such as Pallid Sturgeon are the very best work we have and I'm proud to have made my small contribution to them.
  • I look for anomalies, such as duplicates, and I recently caught this which had been up for most of last year.
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: Yes I've had a few conflicts, but stress is a bit too strong a word. Wikipedia is a big place and if I don't feel comfortable in one part I usually go elsewhere. Sometimes I search for rudewords in user space, and dealing with the vandalism, and personal attacks I find that way gets me into more conflicts than typo fixing; for example this could have been stressful if I was editing in my real name.

Questions from Pedro

4. What are your criteria for granting Rollback? (this question is totally optional in getting me to voice an opinion)
A. The short answer is that if someone asked me for Rollback I would refer them to an experienced admin who does grant rollback. The long answer is that I have started to draft my criteria for rollback, but I'd want to talk it through with experienced admins before I granted or declined Rollback.
5. You say that you wish to work at C:CSD. What actions would you take on encountering the following as an newly created article tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7

"PDO Pdf creator is a simple to use .pdf creation tool that renders all Microsoft documents into Adobe .pdf format. It has been reviewed by several trade magazines and is in use on hundereds of thousands of computers today."

A. Well the speedy is wrong as A7 specifically excludes Software "not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." so as well as fixing the typo I'd take off the speedy tag, then explain why to the speedy tagger.
Yep. Mind you I'd argue there are two typos.... Pedro :  Chat  23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd submit that there should be hyphens in "simple-to-use". Useight (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization of the name appears incorrect, .pdf should be replaced with PDF and hundreds is spelled incorrectly. --Chasingsol(talk) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Chasingsol

6. In regards to Question 1. Other than CSD and AIV, what are the areas you believe need the most administrative assistance and do you plan on assisting in those areas?
A. Hi Chasingsol, interesting questions. Part 1 - "Unknown unknowns" I believe that I don't know what the greatest admin shortages are - there could be a huge shortage in an area that I've not been much involved in and I might not be aware of it. Part 2 - I have no specific plans to work in admin areas other than the ones I've mentioned in my answer to Question 1; however in my time here I have moved into many new areas and so if I get the mop, then after I've found my feet as an admin I will probably but very cautiously move on elsewhere.
Thank you for your response. Please see 6a. below. --Chasingsol(talk) 04:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6a. You have little recent activity in AN/I, none in dispute resolution and none in deletion discussions, areas that RfA candidates are often expected to participate. Can you explain why you have not participated in these areas?
A. I took AN/I off my watchlist after my first RFA failed, I put it back a few days ago when I decided to run again. If this RFA succeeds then I will participate there again as I think what I did in threads like this was quite useful, if it fails I probably won't. A month ago when I'd reached a three month interval from my last RFA I started consulting some of my opposers from last time as to what I might need to work on if I was ever to run again, and the response I got was mostly quite positive, if one my former oppsers had said "ask me again after you've participated in 30 deletion discussions" then I'd probably have done so, but none of them did. On the couple of occasions that I've looked at AFD I think I've wound up fixing basic errors in the articles rather than debating their fate. I suspect if I'd gone down the admin coaching route I would have been advised to work in those areas, but at present that's not where my interests lie.
Thank you for your answer. --Chasingsol(talk) 15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. You support Flagged Revisions. Can you explain why you feel it is necessary from a policy standpoint?
A. I support it from a practical standpoint, when there's a good IP edit on say Beaver (recently semi protected) I think it would be a much better use of everyone's time if the first watchlister to look at the edit flagged it as good, rather than over a couple of hours have all of us who watchlist that article check that edit (though on a cautious note I do wonder how the system could cope with the 25 edits per minute that some high profile articles can get). As for from a policy standpoint then the trite answer is that if after the trial we have consensus to make it policy, then it is policy. However I am concerned that there is a tradeoff, and that this technology could undermine our third pillar "anyone can edit" replacing it with "anyone can edit, but not necessarily in realtime", in order to comply with our second, fourth and especially first pillar "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy". However we live in an imperfect world and sometimes have to make choices, if the trial is successful then I believe that flagged revisions would make Wikipedia a better Encyclopaedia.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this question. --Chasingsol(talk) 15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Davidwr

8. Optional humoouur question - every serious discussion needs a dose of humor - which is best left unanswered: Do you prefer Brittish or Ameerikan Spielling? :). OK, seriously, I'll completely ignore any answer you give to this and rate you on your merits later in the week.
A. I said this is best left unanswered Yeh wel I suspect I prefur fonetix if I nu it, but if GBS couldn't reform spelling I'm not going to try. I actually prefer American English for the lack of the silent u as in honor and color and in making a bit more use of the z key, though I sometimes wince at the extra "ations". But living in the real world I think we are stuck with our multiple versions of English, and I rather like our policy wp:ENGVAR

Question from Hermione1980

9. The account User:Joe Bloggs is created. You see the account vandalizing a couple of pages and follow a link to its userpage. The only text on the userpage is "Joe Bloggs is a mean, fat pig." Where do you report it — UAA, AN/I, AIV, or somewhere else — and why?
A. Well I probably won't report it, in my experience most attacks on user pages are not done by the user, so the first thing I'd do is check the history of User:Joe Bloggs and normally I'd find that someone other than user Joe Bloggs changed the text on User:Joe Bloggs to "Joe Bloggs is a mean, fat pig." If so I'd use Rollback or undo to get it back to the last unvandalised version, then if appropriate warn the vandal or vandals (I often find ancient attacks by longlost users or from school IPs that have had multiple subsequent blocks). If the page was created by the one vandal edit from someone other than user:JoeBloggs then I'd normally tag it as {{db-attack}}. "Mean, fat pig" is pretty innocuous compared to the sort of attack words I usually patrol for so I'd probably have a quick look at the talk page just in case Joe Bloggs is a POV champion for supersized and assertive people. But if we are talking about a three edit account - two vandalisms and the creation of User:Joe Bloggs as "Joe Bloggs is a mean, fat pig." Then I'd report it to UAA as "probably a realname but looking at the attack on the user page not the name of the creator"

Question from Lankiveil

10. Would you describe yourself as an inclusionist?
A. Hi Lankiveil, No I wouldn't go quite that far, but I would concede that if you think of Deletionism and Inclusionism as a scale rather than two absolutes then I'm unusually inclusionist for a new page patroller. If I had to label myself with a particular Wiki philosophy it would be more likely to be eventualism or incrementalism, but as I don't I won't.


Optional question from Hipocrite

11. Have you been involved in a long running dispute as a neutral third party? How did you address it? If not, could you please pick a current long running dispute and discuss how you might help address it?
A. Hi Hipocrite thanks for your question. Apart from some persistent vandals who target certain users and articles on my watchlist, the nearest I've been to longrunning disputes as a neutral have been on some of the articles I watchlist. Talk:Marilyn_Manson and Talk:Russell Brand are two fairly controversial pages that spring to mind where I consider myself a neutral, both gentlemen are popular entertainers with both fans and detractors. I've been involved in a number of disputes there, some of which are on those talkpages. Also whilst I doubt that anyone is truly neutral about David Irving, I am one of those who seeks to keep the article on him in accordance with WP:BLP, and took part in such skirmishes as Talk:David Irving#Proposed move.

Optional Question from Townlake

12. I'm glad you've listed some articles you've created on your user page. Have any articles you've created or made significant contributions to ever been nominated for speedy deletion, and if so, how did you respond? (If none, a simple "No" will thoroughly address the question, or feel free to say how you imagine you might respond.) Townlake (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Hi Townlake thanks for your question, I'm not aware of any article that I've created being proposed for deletion, but as I've taken some of them off my watchlist to avoid me drifting into wp:own territory it is not impossible. Also there was a query and my response to it on Talk:List of fictional demons, but it didn't get as far as a prod. WereSpielChequers 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]


Support[edit]
  1. WSC and I are friendly, and he also does great work reviewing at FAC. Also have seen him at NPP; he deserves the bit. Ceran→//forge 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Supported the last time around and have only seen good things since. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Answer to question 1, is awesome, you're planning on staying in areas that make you comfortable, support.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I remember you, my "RfA partner" from last time (our RfA's were closed one after another). I remember you then, and you've gotten so much better since. Cheers, iMatthew // talk // 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I looked over while the page was created (it was on my watchlist). No major problems. Administrators don't have to be superexcellent users, just solid ones. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No, I'm Spartacus!!!!! WSC has made great improvement, and I am now trusting they with the tools. Xclamation point 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Definitely. LittleMountain5 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nothing bad to see here. And we need more good CSD admins :-) SoWhy 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sure. I supported the first time for one of the more brilliant self-noms I've read. Nothing but improvement since then. No doubts or reservations for me. Keeper | 76 23:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Support (pending answer of my question). I thought they was one already, having seen them around in the usual admin-y locations. That being said, some of the UAA diffs provided by Wisdom89 in the Oppose section have me scratching my head. "Alan Workman" is worthy of being reported? Was there some other backstory behind that username (along with the others in the diffs below) that raised red flags? Hermione1980 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC) To heck with it, strong support for clue, adequate response to my (probably rather unclear) question, general good impression I've gotten from the candidate, and sense of humor (don't you dare leave that behind :-) Hermione1980 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. After taking a sizeable random sample of his speedy tags and his AIV reports, everything that I saw looked good. I liked seeing this (admin only, sorry), he revisited an attack page that hadn't yet been deleted and courtesy blanked it. He also handled this well. As for the diffs raised by Wisdom, UAA was definitely not the place to report those incidents, instead the account should've probably been taken to AIV and the page taken to CSD. UAA is only for blatantly inappropriate usernames; accounts are not blocked solely for potentially being a real name. But, as you don't declare that you want to work at UAA, and given that those reports were good blocks, albeit for a different reason, I think you'll make a fine admin (but if you do end up doing some work at UAA, please keep my previous sentence in mind). Useight (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - per my comments in the "neutral" section. Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, has not had weak AfD comments in the same discussions as me, and has User:WereSpielChequers/Barnstars. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Balloonman likes his CSD'ing, my own random sampling shows appropriate CSDing, supports flagged revisions (i.e. is at least somewhat responsible). Seems like a sensible candidate. WilyD 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, sufficient experience and thoughtfulness. Icewedge (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I've seen this editor around, and have built a generally good impression of the work they do. However, I am left with questions regarding their understanding of what should be reported to UAA per Wisdom - however, all of the accounts mentioned were subsequently (rightfully) blocked. Assuming he will take the criticisms in the oppose section in a constructive manner (I'm confident he will), I have very little qualms about supporting him for adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good candidate, won't break the wiki. Although, he might just do that if his FlaggedRevs are implemented... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak support - Isn't going to break the Wiki, net positive. — neuro(talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Looks good looking through (a limited glance of) contributions and talk page archives (I like the My Badz archive ;P). Concerns per Wisdom89 are unfounded, see WereSpielChequers' response. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak Support as per Neurolysis. TheAE talk/sign 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support for the same reasons as last time. I'm happy to see that there are no cat pix. :) Protonk (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Seen him all over the place, always full of clue. Good call on not answering the Flagged Revs question! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is in good faith in asking for some thoughts regarding policy, knowledge of which is important. It is not intended to stir controversy. --Chasingsol(talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question accepted in good faith and will be answered within 24 hours, apologies for not answering in sequence but I need to shift gears and think on that, especially with that "from a policy standpoint" twist at the end. WereSpielChequers
    I didn't say that Chasingsol asked a bad question, I said that the candidate made a wise choice. It sounds like the candidate is thinking about an answer that would be a discussion about connections to policy rather than a simple yes/no answer; also a wise choice. There were at least 560 votes in the recent Flagged Revs poll, 60/40, with generally dramatic rationales ("It will kill us"/"It will save us"). It's not a good idea to firmly commit on issues that are evenly divided and that carry emotional punch when you need to carry 70% to 80% of the vote. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Erik9 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support - I'm almost disappointed at the lack of cats. :) Just kidding. Anyway, I thought that you'd be a net positive last time, and you've only gotten better since then. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I'm happy here (PS have we met at some meetup?) Majorly talk 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes, we were both among the twenty or so at Wikipedia:Meetup/London 13 so we've quite possibly met, and I seem to have since become a regular at London meetups so perhaps I'll see you on a second Sunday? WereSpielChequers 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support He's been here a while, makes good contributions to the project, appears cautious and deliberate. I trust him to be a good admin as well. --NrDg 03:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Wizardman 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I liked him at the time of his first RfA, and have an even more favorable view now. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I think Wisdom's oppose is valid, in that UAA was the wrong venue, but the end result was the same. You CSD work looks pretty good (even by my standards) and there's nothing wrong with wiki-gnoming as article work. Net Positive. Pedro :  Chat  07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support again. I thought you were ready last time, you just got sunk by a lolcat! I have no concerns at all, you seem to be sensible and clued-up. ~ mazca t|c 07:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Really, really don't like the username, but I must support. Mainly due to the good experiences and cluefulness this user has, but also to at least partly balance those opposes. Good luck.  GARDEN  09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way the comment about the username was a joke more than anything.  GARDEN  19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support contributions all check out, and I seriously thought user was an admin already (didn't that old RfA pass?). Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: I have seen him around, and know him to be a good editor who acts sensibly and with a lot of clue. Giving him the tools will be a benefit to Wikipedia. And frankly, have to agree with Gurch down in the neutral section. Chamal talk 11:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support: I supported the last time 'round and still have the same opinion. I think he'll use the tools wisely and ask when he's not certain. I thought it was a shame his last request failed, and for such a reason, as well! Maedin\talk 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. No problems here. Reasonable, well-seasoned. "Perfection" is not a requirement here, folks. Tan | 39 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Moved from neutral. I greatly appreciate the thoughtful and honest answers you have provided to my questions. I sincerely hope that you expand your areas of interest to include those that require the very type of thoughtful and measured response you have provided to me. The other administrative areas where you are not presently participating are no less important than the relatively rapid fire world of AIV and CSD, they always require those who are able to assist in dispute resolution, consensus building and policy discussions. Your statement to the admittedly difficult question regarding Flagged Revisions shows me that even though we may disagree, you do at least see both sides of the arguments that have been made. I am completely confident that you will make a good administrator. --Chasingsol(talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a mensch. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - always been impressed by the user's temperament when I've encountered them, whether I've agreed with them or not and I don't see anything that would cause me to oppose. If there's a question about how they interpret username policy then anyone can start a discussion, I'd imagine them taking any advise given to them and accepting any consensus reached, not rushing out and being reckless. Admins are human and having the tools - in my opinion - should not be a big deal. To me, if the user has shown themselves to have a dedication to the project and be reasonably competent, how I think they will react to and learn from the few mistakes that they will make, is more important that finding a few edits that point towards the fact that they may make them in the first place - everyone makes mistakes. No one's perfect and I think as an admin User:WereSpielChequers would help improve and maintain Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No question. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good experiences with editor & good work, the win (for it). FlyingToaster 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Suppportspecialist admin While article building is to be encouraged, time spent by non builders dealing with WP:CSD and WP:AIV won't result in time taken away from article building. One does not need a high degree of empathy to delete Somebody's name here is gay, or to block the vandal that has created a bunch of similar quality edits. Dlohcierekim 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support From my look at contribs, editor has a clue and will do fine. Gnomish admins are in need: we're not short on admins with ANI on their watchlist. I won't go and further edit the oppose section but I really must point out that the opposes surrounding the UAA issue have a cringe-inducing level of absurdity, as does the oppose based on the grounds that WSC's time would be better spent elsewhere (as if anyone has the right to determine the way in which an editor helps out). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - WSC has made good contributions and (IMHO) I think he'd make an excellent admin. I've noticed that as I peruse the pages on WP, I see WSC in many areas and he's been honest, civil, and rational. I also respect the fact that he is held in high esteem with many of the editors and admins that I respect. Good Luck! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I'm pretty sure he has exactly the right attitude - serious and actually gives a shit about the content of Wikipedia and with some understanding of Wikipedia outside Wikipedia, yet not so serious that he'd suddenly blow up about it. Nothing's really changed since last time. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good answers to questions, good article participation + a creation pattern that will enable him to empathize with new editors, clearly learned a lot from the first RfA and took advice to heart. A lot of articles he started are stubby, so I can completely understand why he'd look elsewhere in discussing his proudest contributions. Townlake (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Everything I saw looks fine and am not persuaded by the opposes, should make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support User has overcame concerns raised in previous RFA and has been around since April 2007 and after looking at contributions feel the project will only gain with the user getting the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support WSC's edits pop up rather unnervingly often on my watchlist, and I've had good experiences with the candidate, including WP:CUP. SpencerT♦C 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have never agreed that an editor must have experience in all, or nearly all of the various administrator-type activities in other to be ready for adminship, any more than we expect a given admin to use the tools in every area, and have seen this type of expectation of candidates seems to be applied haphazardly. I have carefully reviewed the concerns of the opposers and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support: excellent editor. His mainspace contributions are excellent, and whenever I see his (rather bright) signature it is always next to something well thought-out and constructive. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support have found him to be helpful and positive in outlook - and good to have more reviewers of content around :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Gnomey editor, does a lot of behind the scenes work. I can understand where Wisdom89 is coming from (would have preffered AIV to UAA), but like others have said we're not in this game to run a WP:BURO. As long as the end result is the user being blocked sharpish, I don't see a problem with it. Many thanks, Gazimoff 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - After reviewing his contributions, I trust him with the admin tools --Megaboz (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Of course. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. user OK. —macy 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support — Would make a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. The candidate is helpful and a good contributor, although he is a tad inexperienced in certain admin-related areas and in content-building. I am convinced, however, that he'll be a net positive and won't abuse the tools. Majoreditor (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, no reason to oppose. Terraxos (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - ditto with Terraxos. I think you'd make a good admin. Ginbot86 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Solid contributor, extensive mainspace experience, no indication of drama or other such problems; overall positive for the project. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. The candidate shows no potential signs for future abuse. --ERK talk • contribs 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I find the candidate's answers to the questions compelling enough to overlook the opposes below. Trusilver 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Good editor from what I've seen. Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. I all ready was favorably disposed towards this user from seeing him around, a look into his contribs gives me no reason to oppose. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. A-OK to me. DiverseMentality 05:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Secret account 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. I like what I see in contribs., I like the attitude, I like the involvement in new page patrol, I like the humor, actually, I don't see anything I don't like. I'm all for beefing up the admin. corps, and this seems like a good choice. — Ched (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Good user. Please, please, please, let's not discourage a good editor with petty objections. I see no reason they would misuse the tools. Jehochman Talk 16:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I supported him last time. His contributions have improved since then. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strongest Possible Support Keepscases (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Positives outweigh the negatives. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Like last time, I think he can has mop but should keep it away from the cat. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Thelittlegreyman (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, excellent user, no reason to believe he wouldn't be an excellent administrator as well. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote indented. You cannot support twice :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What the deuce?! Firefox's find function assured me I hadn't commented here! Shows what you get for going with the cheaper competitor; my apologies :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "An editor so nice, I voted for them twice"????? LOL (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We will be sure to discuss your lack of situational awareness at your RfA, Ironholds :) Trusilver 01:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Won't abuse the tools. Sam Blab 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Shupport Yesh...and didn't I support you last time too? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Appears trustworthy. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 02:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I've done much more digging and whilst I still think an admin should be in a position to grant rollbacker upon grant of the bit (not all tools, but this one yes) I think that WSC's other contributions to the project overrides this objection and I'll happily support now. fr33kman -s- 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Okay user. Tcrow777 Talk 05:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support: Seems trustworthy -- Tinu Cherian - 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - I've got no concerns with WSC getting the mop - I think he'll make a fine addition to the team. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. support — Jake Wartenberg 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Per nom opening statement. America69 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - per Cyclonenim's co-nom Kennedy (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support The opposes are fairly unconvincing, looks like a great editor. Ray (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Seen WereSpielChequers around: excellent editor. Acalamari 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - not a complete deletionist, can use the tools. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I have had only positive impressions of this user, think his qualifications are sufficient, and did not find the opposing arguments compelling. Wronkiew (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. WSC seems to be a genuinely productive, knowledgeable, and friendly member of the Wikipedia community. Chicken Wing (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support After reading this page and reviewing candidate's contributions I found no reason to oppose. Ruslik (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support We all contribute in different ways. The only real question is whether those contributions demonstrate a candidate's trustworthiness and good sense. In this case I think they do. Rje (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose failed to meet my expectations... and oh, no more beat the nom supports!---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - I have seen you around the wiki, you have my trust, I am sure you will make a good administrator. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Weak Support weak only because I don't have time to do a full investigation, but from the looks of things he could get my strong support if I did. Only bothered to do this much because he's so close to WP:100 and this closes in a matter of hours; I'd feel guilty if he didn't make that on my account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see how you are... you want me to change my mock oppose to a support because he will break 100 with mere minutes to go before he is promoted.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - Good user, would do fine with the bit. J.delanoygabsadds 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Provisional oppose pending an explanation. You list Pallid sturgeon as the sole example of your best work other than spellchecking; however, you have precisely six edits to this page, all of them minor. My usual "I don't insist on penning a featured article from scratch but I do think every admin should have at least some article writing experience" applies; I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that you do have sufficient experience, but you need to demonstrate it; it appears to me as things stand that either you can't be bothered to list your contributions, or you really don't have any. – iridescent 23:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, I don't think you're read into what he's said properly. He said: "Articles such as Pallid Sturgeon are the very best work we have and I'm proud to have made my small contribution to them.". He's not saying that's his best contribution, minor edits as you pointed out, he's saying he's proud to have made a small contribution to one of Wikipedia's best articles. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iridescent, just to clarify as I said in Q2 I regard my reviews at FAC as one of my best contributions to Wikipedia. I'll do that without the piping Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pallid_sturgeon, as I think that perhaps you looked at the article not my review of it. I'll also give you another example of a review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär, many more are listed on my user page. I haven't claimed my article writing as one of my best contributions, but that doesn't mean that amongst my over 16,000 article edits there isn't a fairly substantial amount of work. Though to quote the first opposer at my first RFA "Striking oppose as that seems reasonable (one of the problems with bulk-minor-edits is they "hide" the significant edits in your history)" WereSpielChequers 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While you do not flat out state that you will be working at UAA, you have roughly 40 edits or so to the page, many that are recent, which, to me, indicates that you will likely work there in the future. Sorry, but if you honestly feel that these usernames [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] need to be reported and blocked, I absolutely never want to see you with the block button. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Ok, after revisiting the discussion, I've decided to strike this oppose. I appreciate the clarification from Iridescent and others regarding the nature of the users reported. Too bad I couldn't see those malicious edits myself. I'm still a little uncomfortable with such names going to UAA (as it just isn't the appropriate venue), but it's certainly not enough for me to oppose over. It's counterbalanced by clue. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – you can't see, but I can; those were all accounts used to create attack pages bearing the same name as the username (e.g. "My name is xxxxx and I am a big fat faggot"). WSC might have worded it confusingly, but they were legitimate blocks. – iridescent 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll take that into consideration - however, UAA is not the proper venue at all for such usernames. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wp:UAA#Real names "You should not register under any name that would lead others to assume your account is associated with any person other than yourself." If someone creates a user account that consists only of an attack page in someone else's name then yes it breaches our rules. It isn't the most common sort of report at UAA but where else would they go? Taking number four as an example "probably a real name and if so a violation as not the name of the creator - see User:Pejman Bahagholi which I've just proded as db-attack" any suggestions as to how else I could have phrased that? WereSpielChequers 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm Iridescent's note. Frankly, I never work at UAA so I don't know if it's the right venue to report this but who cares? It needed to be taken care of and it was so from where I'm standing it's a good call on WSC's part. I checked the first three reports and they all led to quick indef-blocks, all from the same admin (Kurt Shaped Box). Unsurprisingly, the admin never complained to WSC about UAA being the wrong venue. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: when a problem isn't reported at the right place, people aren't told to go down to office 304B: the problem is just dealt with. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow on Wisdom89 difs Oppose with regret, they are too recent to ignore. Secret account 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Secret, Four of those were judged good calls at UAA but this wasn't, I reported it as "Violation of username plicy because possible real name and judging by attack nature of the contribs highly unlikely to be the name of the creator". To be honest I'm still not sure why that wasn't considered an attack on "Jimbob", would you mind telling me why you think it was such a bad call for me to be troubled enough about that to report it? WereSpielChequers 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at this particular account, the only revisions visible are on their talk page. Unless I am missing something, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to at least discuss with this person first regarding concerns? There were no warnings, no templates, nothing added to their talk page. Zero attempt to discuss Wikipedia policies. Removal of malicious BLP material is specifically allowed by anyone, which could have resolved the attack nature of the talk page but still allowed a discourse to occur. Requesting the block hammer from the beginning seems very WP:BITEy. --Chasingsol(talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted material is only available to admins but trust me, these were not editors that you try to reason with. The accounts were clearly malicious. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there is no deleted material for this user, unless it was oversighted. --Chasingsol(talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to deleted pages don't show up on the contributions list - that's why you don't see the edits that tag pages in the contributions list for speedy deleters. (good ones that is). » \ / (⁂) 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand how deleted edits will not show up in the contributions list. As I stated, in this case there are no deleted edits visible to either myself or an administrator (I asked one to look before making the above statement). It appears that the only contributions by this account were to userspace. --Chasingsol(talk) 14:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late reply, as right now I'm in long wikibreak mode, i crossed out the oppose. Secret account 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chasingsol, I see two deleted revisions of User talk:Jimbobsaway that that user created as an attack page. Someone else replaced it later with a warning template (so at the time of your post it had been reverted, not deleted), and it was just deleted 2/9 as a banned user's talk page. delldot ∇. 19:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - your work seems primarily gnome work that would be best if you didn't have the tools to distract you from this. Anything else seems like you don't actually need this, and that you don't have enough experience in the areas outside of the occasional vandal to warrant it, let alone enough experiences in other areas that would led me to think that you would do more than simply just blocking and moving on, which is not really that great of an action. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - per Iridescent. It's good for admins who want to work on the deletion of articles to understand what's involved in article creation. Dean B (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per Iridescent. Giggy (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Iridescent. Pattont/c 12:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I don't think that they have the right attitude. — Aitias // discussion 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Off-topic discussion moved to talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/WereSpielChequers_2#off-topic_discussion_from_Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FWereSpielChequers_2.23Oppose). — Aitias // discussion 19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I believe that a small amount of significant content building is necessary for admins, and I do not see that in this case. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I prefer "creator-admins" (not "inclusionists") who have created valuable articles and have undergone many things and procedures relating contents disputes (or discussions), to "deletionist-admins" who do not contribute their time to care to create/edit articles. --Caspian blue 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this is the kind of admin you prefer. But the question is: does that disqualify other candidates? And that question notwithstanding, WSC does have experience with content building (say on the Easter Island article), does have experience with the FAC process which is certainly one that requires understanding the plight of content writers and, in Q10 above, describes himself as "inclusionist"-leaning. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you generalizing people who don't have significant content building experience as deletionists? I don't think that's a very good reason to oppose someone for. Sam Blab 00:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Caspian, If you are opposing me for lack of a GA or FA then yes I'm guilty as charged, and true the content discussions that I've taken part in as part of my reviews at FAC don't really count as disputes. But I would appreciate it if you would rephrase your sentence "deletionist-admins who do not contribute their time to create/edit articles". A large proportion, quite possibly a majority of my sixteen and a half thousand mainspace edits have been content improvements as opposed to vandal reverting. True the vast majority of those have been minor, perhaps only a single link fixed or typo corrected; but even without the smaller number of my more significant edits they all add up to a sufficient amount of article improvement for me to find your assessment of my contributions a tad harsh. By all means oppose me for the lack of an FA, but I would appreciate it if you would at least strike out the word edit from "deletionist-admins who do not contribute their time to create/edit articles. Thanks WereSpielChequers 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I made you upset as stating my "ideal" admins here. However, as reading through comments from the oppose camp, I had an impression that you're a deletionist with low creations of articles. (on your user page, the created articles by you are very few) Could you give more examples to show that you successfully dealt with content disputes? I can move to neutral or support side if you do so (or can be struck here depending on your answer).--Caspian blue 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Caspian, yes happy to list a few more content discussions I've been involved in User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 1#Falkes de Breauté and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär were examples of me raising contradictions between articles; Talk:Arachnomorpha was a merge of two articles where I was able to get the main authors involved; this rude word and Talk:Nottingham#Nottingham/Tehran twin? are examples of me acting on IP edit requests; plus there are the examples I gave earlier of work at wp:FAC, and in my answers to qs 11 & 12. Oh and I was quite active on talk:Large Hadron Collider when it was in the news - a lot of those threads are now in Talk:Large Hadron Collider/Archive 7. Also Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9 has a few threads that I participated in. Is that the sort of stuff you were looking for? WereSpielChequers 15:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral leaning to support - a look through your CSD contributions didn't raise any immediate red flags. Having read your Q1 response, please keep in mind you won't always be deleting CSD nominations - there's always a fair few that are wrongly nominated or can be salvaged following minor rewrites or referencing. Given your recent focus on this area, I'm confident you'll be keeping this in mind - you might want to expand slightly on your Q1 wording re this point. Also, I don't expect FA's but some content work beyond cleanup is important - you mentioned some in your last RfA, can you give some more recent examples? Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to support after review of FAC contributions. Your own content additions are comparatively few, but your FAC work demonstrates a pretty good understanding of the importance of well-referenced and well-written material, and a sensitivity to how others might feel about criticism of their work. Fine by me. Euryalus (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's probably worth noting that ~1/3 of speedy deletion nominations are bad noms, which don't qualify for speedy deletions (a guess on the fraction, but it's quite high. Bad G11s and bad A7s are rampant). I assume Werespielchequers knows this, but if you're only nominating, and not reviewing noms, you might not realise. WilyD 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, you are saying that 1/3 of other people's noms are bad, not that 1/3 of WSC's are bad, correct?---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wily, yes I'm aware that a lot of new pages get nommed for deletion where my reaction is to fix a typo, move to capitalise the surname or welcome a newbie Talk:Bruce Goldsmith, gives one part of the thread where a recent world champion of a minor sport recently got tagged, Hangon, deleted, undeleted and still exists. Most of that rescue was actually done not by me but by the newbie (and a very quick Uturn by the deleting admin who deserves better than to be named here) but I remember edit conflicting with the newbie on the deleting admins page. WereSpielChequers 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean if I picked 100 pages out of C:CSD, probably 70 could be validly speedily deleted. WilyD 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. LOL 2 opposes for correctly reporting attack accounts -- Gurch (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's RfA nowadays, in an absolute nutshell.  GARDEN  09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowadays? Two years ago I got two opposes for not escalating an edit war, and instead taking a long walk in the snow. WilyD 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to the club, we have t-shirts. I got opposed by an anti-KurtWeber soapboxer who claimed that being nominated by someone is prima facie evidence of too much socialization on Wikipedia. I love this place. Trusilver 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we also have F-shirts for those of us with two arms on one side? WilyD 01:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to my life. I was opposed for using a four letter word beginning with s on my own talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't tell me...shoe? :D  GARDEN  10:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough, it was brought up that "fuck" appears in several of my edit summaries, and nobody thought it was an issue. WilyD 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now Moving to support. I have a few concerns, which I am hoping you will resolve in the answers to my questions. (questions answered). As others have stated, I don't think you'll break the wiki, but I'm also not sure as to why you really need the mop. You state that you intend to focus on AIV, yet it is rarely backlogged. CSD can use additional eyes, although making someone an administrator solely for that reason does not seem wise. In looking at past RfA's, one of the criteria that many people require is activity in administrative areas in general, including AN/I, XfD, DR, etc. These areas often need in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies, the ability to determine consensus and defuse sometimes difficult situations. I am not currently convinced that your contributions are sufficient to assuage those concerns. While becoming an administrator is "no big deal", it also is not a reward for solely being a good editor. --Chasingsol(talk) 15:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    General comment, Chasingsol made a valid point although making someone an administrator solely for that reason does not seem wise. Most of the time, I would agree, I generally don't like people who focus on CSD because I think we have too many CSD'ers who are lax and careless... it takes somebody who handles CSD exceptionally to get my support. To this extent, I think we need to promote more people who appreciate the need for the policies/guidelines of CSD to counteract the "delete first" crowd. CSD in my opinion has one of the worst reputations on WP, but it isn't because the people there don't care and don't make a valiant effort, it is because there are a few people who give the rest a bad name. I think WSC falls into the category of those people who want to give CSD a good reputation.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning Support Changing to support. - Opposes are convincing, but every experience I have with this editor has been very positive. Trusilver 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral-Unsure at this time.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (weak) I have no opposition to your nom. My only issue is your answer to granting rollbacker where I feel as an experienced user already you should have an answer to this question already. It is a very important tool for vandal fighting and a good, qualified editor should be able to approach you and receive it if appropriate. fr33kman -s- 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's quite reasonable to request assistance from another administrator if you're not comfortable or familiar with the matter at hand. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I agree and applaude this attitude in the nom (we should all ask for help if we need it), I just think that the criteria for rollback are already fairly well known and that for such an "easy" decision, an admin should be ready day one. I'm willing to be convinced and to reconsider however, that's why I gave a weak neutral, a very weak neutral really. I felt an oppose is completely wrong and hovered between neutral and support for some time before deciding. fr33kman -s- 02:52, 10 February 2009 (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/WereSpielChequers_2&oldid=1091461752"