Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Neil

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

Neil

Final: (77/31/7); ended 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello! I realise this may look like I'm piling on, but some of us have to sleep, you know. Plus, as great as many of the below candidates are, at present it only really looks like one or two are going to pass, and so here's another RFB for you to scrutinise. Formerly editing under the username Proto, I have been on Wikipedia since March 2005 and an administrator since April 2006. That's almost 3 years of editing (two FAs if you care about that stuff, I'm still hoping to get more), and around 22 months of mopping, at a consistent level of activity. I like to think that in this time I've built up a reputation as someone who is fair, reasonable and listens to others, and - perhaps more importantly for a potential bureaucrat - in possession of sound judgement. I feel my participation has matured on Wikipedia to the extent where I can offer more to the community than just adminship.

As for where I envisage helping out, I'd be willing to help with RFA closures as and when required, although I don't think that's necessarily the primary backlog. I would imagine more of my time would be spent working with changing usernames and usurpations - I have participated on and off for a long time with WP:RFCN and WP:UAA, am cognizant of the username policy and the importance of not biting the newbies, and am conscientious. I've also familiarised myself with the bot policy in the past few hours and am confident I'd be able to handle flagging bots there.

A note - yes, we have plenty of bureaucrats, albeit many aren't active, but there's nothing particularly backlogged at present. However, activity comes and goes in waves, and why wait for a problem to eventuate? Surely, it's better to have occasions where there's nothing for b'crats to do than it is to have occasions where there's steaming great backlogs? I would urge you all to support as many bureaucrats as possible. There is no harm in having an excess capacity, and some of the below candidates are excellent. I do hope, however, you'll also consider my name for the role. Many thanks. Neıl ☎ 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Neıl ☎ 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Yes, I have read the discussions - the recent one surrounding demon^'s re-sysopping is an excellent case. To forego the question, I probably would not have closed that RFA as "promote", but I do understand why Wjscribe did so. It was a judgement call. Perhaps shooting myself in the foot by bringing this up, but I would really like the community to come up with some kind of workable rule of thumb on reconfirmations - I have habitually opposed them in the past, as I believe they are an unnecessary exercise. The criteria for promotion are very straightforward, I believe - a consensus amongst the community that the user is competent and trustworthy. This is indicated by a level of support in excess of 70 to 75%. Of course, the "supports" and (particularly) the "opposes" should be scrutinised. There may be a very relevant reason to oppose that crops up at the last second, in which case a deadline extension may be applicable. I don't believe that sort of decision should be made by any one bureaucrat - it should be a discussed choice. Personally, if I see the level is above 75% then unless there are some very serious concerns, the decision to promote should be straightforward.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. All contentious nominations should pass by more than one set of eyes. A discussion between bureaucrats is appropriate for any borderline promotion decisions. Whilst the criticism, in itself, wouldn't necessarily upset me, it is far better to ensure no such criticism takes place, by discussing any tight RFA closures openly and on-Wiki. I would like to see the opinions of non-bureaucrats as a part of these discussions.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I've answered this to some extent in my opening statement. I believe I have acted fairly in my conduct on Wikipedia; certainly, in 22 months of sysopping, I haven't incurred any especial wrath despite being one of the more active admins. I hope to continue to act in such a way. I know policy well, and have participated in numerous discussions both on- and off-Wiki. As for engagement, it is important to be communicative, open, and never abusive or rude. I am a good communicator, I believe, and open. I am very much in favour of keeping Wikipedia decision on-Wiki, visible to all, and can't think of many where that would not be necessary for a bureaucrat. I've been snippy on infrequent occasions back in the past, but usually apologise, and can't think of an example of that in the last six months or more. If you find one, then please point it out.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes, and yes. I have the time spare to do this, and my situation is stable, so I'll be able to put time into this for the foreseeable future. I'm happy to answer any further questions anyone may have.

(Not really optional) questions from User:Twooars

5.It is obvious to me that when a 'crat closes a difficult RfA, a certain amount of personal bias does exist in the final decision and this can not be avoided. I would just like to choose 'crats knowing their biases and standards rather than someone who sidesteps the question saying "my opinion doesn't matter, I'll just determine whether there is consensus or not". Hence the following questions; unlike at an RfA, a refusal to answer may be sufficient reason for an automatic default oppose from me but answering them honestly will probably bring you more opposes, so.... :)

a)How do you feel about the following oppose reasons, assuming that they are the oppose rationales in their entirety (responses on a scale of "wtf?" to "well said!" :)

• • • Not enough experience - Good.
    • Not enough time spent - Reasonable.
    • Uses automated tools - Lame.
    • No participation at XFD / AIV / RFPP - Good.
    • No need for tools - Lame
    • Not enough mainspace contributions - Depends on what their criteria for "enough" is - a number? A percentage? It is reasonable to expect some mainspace editing.
    • Not enough wikipedia space contributions - Again, depends on their criteria. It is reasonable to require some Wikipedia space contributions.
    • Low mainspace:wikipedia space ratio (or any other ratio) - Lame.
    • Unfriendly / curt when communicating with fellow editors - Wholly relevant and appropriate, but would expect diffs.
    • "I'll oppose all self nominations" - Poor (note I do oppose reconfirmations).
    • "Weak answers to questions" / - Reasonable (note I split this and the next point as they need a differing response).
    • "Did not bother to answer to questions" - Good.
    • Weak vs. strong oppose - Only makes a difference if things are close.
    • <any other reason you think should have been mentioned here / feel strongly about... I may add more if I can think of some more or if you think these quesions aren't enough work for one day ;) > Any negative statement about a candidate's editing history should be supported with diffs. Vague accusations of misdeeds with no evidence provided are a poor reason to oppose. Doesn't apply if a previous editor has already supplied the diffs, though.
    • <no oppose reason given> - Lame.

My replies are in bold. Neıl ☎ 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

b)How do you feel about reconfirmation RfA's? Do you think they should have a different yardstick? Do you plan to apply a different yardstick?

I dislike reconfirmation RFAs, as I feel they are unnecessary. I have, as mentioned in my statement, opposed them in the past purely for being unnecessary. I would like to see a guideline established for reconfirmation RFAs stating they are not required. While they exist, I would expect the yardstick to be the same, but I would prefer they didn't happen in the first place. Neıl ☎ 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

c)When you are in doubt about an RfA closing and there are no other crats available to discuss with, what would you do, close as successful or unsuccessful?

Put it on hold and wait until other crats are available. There's no rush. Neıl ☎ 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from SQL^{Query me!}

6.You mention in 5a, that you oppose all self-nominations. Isn't this very request a self-nomination? What's with the inconsistency? (Yes, I'm aware that this is an RFB, and not an RFA)

Whoops - I got mixed up with reconfirmations after typing it so many times. I have no objections to self-nominations (I in fact self-nominated for my RFA, deliberately, despite offers). I've amended my response as such. Opposing based on a dislike of self-nomiations (q.v. Kurt) is poor, although I did defend his right to oppose based on that reasoning. Neıl ☎ 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha, I figured it was a mistake or something, thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 13:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD

7. You mention that you'd promote over 75% in an RfA unless you saw some very serious concerns: can you provide some examples of the kind of cases where you'd not promote an RfA with over 75% support? WilyD 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One example off the top of my head - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2. Joturner's RFA was at 121/30/3 (just over 80%) at the end of the 7 days. A number of these opposes came very late in the process, so the bureaucrats extended the end date to allow for further scrutiny. Over the next day or so it dropped to 123/45/4 (73.2%) and Joturner withdrew. That's the sort of example I was thinking of. There aren't that many. Another - theoretical - example might be if an RFA was at 75% and an allegation of abusive sockpuppetry was submitted just before it ended. It doesn't mean the RFA would fail, it just means it should be extended to enable further scrutiny by the community and checking to see if the claim was valid. Plenty of RFAs have experienced "late breaking news" - such as Cla68's RFA, which plumetted from 34/0 to 41/30 in the last 2 days following an oppose based on serious concerns. Neıl ☎ 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from hmwith

8. Do you feel that your personal opinion on reconfirmation RfAs will affect your judgment in closing them?

Not at all - as I say below, it's much the same as closing an AFD. I close AFDs as "keep" all the time, even if I would have personally argued to "delete", and vice versa. This is no different. Every bureaucrat who closes an RFA has an opinion on whether the candidate should or should not get the mop, but they remain dispassionate and close it based on their judgement of the community consensus. I firmly believe I am capable of doing so. Neıl ☎ 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

9. Also, concerning admin recall (such as in my criteria/process here), you are against those type of RfAs in this situation still, I see (correct me if I'm wrong, please). What would you suggest I (or other editors) should do to regain our tools someday, or should we never regain them?

If you were forcibly desysopped, or gave it up following a recall, then the subsequent RFA is not a "reconfirmation", rather it's a request for adminship for someone who is not an administrator, and of course then an RFA should take place. Of course, if you voluntarily rescinded the bit without a recall, you can get the tools back by asking a bureaucrat, and you should then do so. Again, my personal feelings are that recall isn't a good process, as it's open to gaming, and would prefer to see someone initiate an RFC if they have an issue with an admin. Neıl ☎ 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Keilana

10. When would you consider a reconfirmation RfA necessary? If it had come out to that in the RfC, would you have opposed a reconfirmation for Archtransit solely based on the fact that it's a reconfirmation?

A reconfirmation RFA is never necessary. I can't see the situation you state coming to pass. RFCs - rightly - do not have the authority to desysop someone; ArbCom does. If someone is forcibly desysopped by ArbCom, then any subsequent RFA isn't a reconfirmation. Neıl ☎ 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

11. If someone is desysopped voluntarily, would you oppose their subsequent RfA based on the fact that it was a reconfirmation?

Yes. They don't need an RFA. They can get the bit back by asking a bureaucrat, any time. Neıl ☎ 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

12. (I have a bit of a vested interest in this one) You opposed my recent reconfirmation RFA because you dislike reconfirmation. What if I had given up my tools before standing for RfA? Would that have changed things?

Nope. I still would have opposed. You didn't need an RFA either way. You already had the tool so your RFA was pointless, and to require one suggests a need for community validation I don't personally consider a useful trait in an admin. If an admin in good standing gives up the tools, and subsequently wants them back, all they need to do is drop a note on WP:BN. I can see no practical reason for an RFA to take place. Neıl ☎ 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions fromMBisanz

13a. Crats flag Bots per WP:BAG consensus. They also interpret close elections of editors to the BAG. What is your standard for an editor passing a BAG election?

Technical competence and trustworthiness - I am not technically minded when it comes to bots, so I would leave judgement of technical competence to the BAG. Neıl ☎ 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

13b. BAG approves Bots in the WP:RBA process. How many BAGers supporting a Bot function would you require to flag a bot? What if there was opposition from non-BAGers?

I wouldn't put a number on how many would be needed (one or two would be sufficient if there were no opposals and the bot's task was straightforward). If there were opposition I would expect to see a broad consensus. Neıl ☎ 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

13c Currently the process to involuntarily de-flag a bot is handled in an ad-hoc manner at WT:RFBA. Where, from whom, and in what form, would you require consensus to de-flag a bot against its owner's wishes? Against the BAG's wishes, but with the community's consensus?

I'd like to see it done via an RFC, ideally. The BAG is a subset and a part of the community, and if the community as a whole says "no" to the bot, this would override the BAG. Neıl ☎ 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

13d. (from Daniel (talk)): You believe RfC should be used to deflag a bot, remove the approval of a bot, or both? The original question related to flagging/de-flagging, and I just wanted to be clear on both counts. Daniel (talk) 11:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagging is just a way of identifying the bot as a bot - it doesn't need to be flagged in order to run. I've always viewed it as a courtesy to Related Changes, nothing more. But a bot does need to be approved. The RFC should be used to remove the approval - once that is clear then the deflagging should be done simply as an administrative task. All approved bots should be flagged, all bots yet to be approved or that are no longer approved should not be flagged. Neıl ☎ 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from GRBerry

14 Would you automatically oppose a RFA for a recalled administrator. I note that you didn't opine in the only one so far, but that might have been before you turned your attention to this area. GRBerry 14:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will dig myself deeper in the hole I've dug by expressing my views candidly thus far - I don't like recall, either. I dislike the concept; it's wooly, it's open to gaming from people who dislike the admin, and it's open to gaming by the admin themselves - we've all seen admins say they were open to recall then promptly change the goalposts when it looked like it might actually happen. And, much like reconfirmation, it's a drama magnet. I'd rather see a self-initiated RFC. However, I wouldn't have opposed a recalled administrator because it was a recall - I think there's a slight but distinct difference between returning after losing your bit due to a recall and returning to RFA after voluntarily giving up the mop because you needed a break / had decided to retire then changed your mind, and big difference bewteen an RFA after recall than having an RFA when you already have the mop, solely to see how many people like you. Neıl ☎ 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Dorftrottel

15. Hypothetically speaking, if an RfA were to be opposed by a relatively large number of people who have a significant history of voting in unison, would that influence the weight you assign those opposes or not? Dorftrottel (ask) 01:44, March 1, 2008

You see that happen all the time, such as on Riana's RFB. However, for a bureaucrat to devalue such patterns based on what would only be a gut judgement (as no evidence would be possible) would be a dangerous, slippery slope to go down. It's not uncommon for editors who work closely together on and off-Wiki to share common views - this is why they work together in the first place. So no, I couldn't assign less weight to those opposes, much as I may like to. Neıl ☎ 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some argue that mass opposing can be used to exert pressure to conform to a certain opinion or mindset, and to punish and make an example of dissenters. In my humble opinion, bureaucrats should indeed step in when such a pattern becomes obvious. For one modest example, see Q16. Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:38, March 3, 2008

16. What is your opinion on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes? In your own opinion, did the numbers (201/71/4, 73,9% support) and the overall quality of the opposes justify that closure? How would you have commented on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat? Dorftrottel (criticise) 08:38, March 3, 2008

General comments

• See Neil's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• Neil, can you clarify something? Am I reading this right? Are you saying that you oppose self-nominations, yet you are self-nominating for bureaucratship? Kingturtle (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was a typo, see diff Woody (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As Woody says (and saved me finding the diff). See my answer to Q5. I typed reconfirmations too frequently in a short space of time and am now seeing it everywhere(!) To clarify, I absolutely do not object to self-nominations, in fact personally preferring them (such as here, and for my RFA). Neıl ☎ 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. Thanks for clarifying. Kingturtle (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • FWIW, further, it was long our practice that nominations for bureaucratship necessarily be self-noms (consistent with which the "please indicate acceptance" language was not found in {{RfB}} until its text was standardized with that of {{RfA}}). Even as RfBs are so infrequent, I have missed the last several, but I can say that I don't recall partaking of any RfB that was not a self-nom (certainly some standing for RfB were encouraged by other editors to run, but nominating statements were not offered). (This is, of course, almost entirely irrelevant here, but we process addicts fixate on items like this). Joe 02:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • For the record, The Rambling Man has been nominated by Dweller (IIRC), and is currently doing quite well. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Per my longstanding custom, I don't "vote". I think this is a trustworthy candidate and we are in chronic need of new bureaucrats, however, so I want to express my support for the nomination. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC) He has admitted involvement in an external site known to be a sympathetic home to trolls, stalkers and others of ill will towards Wikipedia. I regret that my judgement, on this occasion, was off. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - while it's very clear this RFB is doomed to failure (at present, it would need 103 straight "supports" to achieve 90%), I would like to allow it to run its course, as the comments thus far have been enlightening. Neıl ☎ 10:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I do hope you take the comments re. self noms on board, and I applaud you on being open to critique etc. here rather than just withdrawing when the chips are down. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment I would just like to discuss the reconfirmation RfA view based opposes- Neil might have his own views, we are each entitled to our own views. However, there's no evidence to show that his own opinions would particularly sway his implementation of consensus. He himself says he will implement it as a bureaucrat should, regardless of his personal views, and has done at AfD. (sorry if I've put this in the wrong place.) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Completely support Woody (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Surprising myself with this one... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, without hesitation. · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support --Coredesat 11:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Well suited for this role. --John Vandenberg (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Cool headed and articulates well. Also I find the use of green in the sig reassuring :-) AKAF (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - A great candidate for this position. He takes the interests of WP first before the interests of individuals. spryde | talk 12:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Absolutely trust Neil. henrik•talk 12:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support, no reservations. Dorftrottel (harass) 12:45, February 28, 2008
10. Support. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support and experienced admin who has dealt competently and skilfully with many situations in his time. Reasonably good answer to question 1, too, not afraid of taking head on some tricky material. Tends not to attract or cause drama, has much experience of consensus decision taking per participation in all parts of AfD, DRV and the like and therefore has developed a good sense of which way the wind will most productively blow. Splash - tk 13:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Question 2. Dlohcierekim 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Excellent answers. Húsönd 14:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - candidate has a brain, thus gains my support. Will ^(talk) 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Lots of experience, and always seemed level-headed to me. Friday (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Edit-conflicted Support - He's a fine admin, and he'll make a fine 'crat. --jonny-mt 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. The mere fact that Neil does not support reconfirmation RfA's does not seem serious enough to warrant an oppose. Neil could make good use of the 'crat tools. Qst (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Edit conflict support - Good answers to questions. Tiptoety ^talk 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - He will be able to hold his own as a bureaucrat. Has a good eye for consensus. EJF (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - One of those rare editors that says what they mean the first time and everyone knows what they mean when they say it. (know what I mean?) In other words, fluent in "Type-ese". An admirable trait that will translate well to 'crat decision making and community trust when difficult or contentious decisions will inevitably arise. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - satisfactory answer to my question which displays good judgement on when good judgement should be applied (:)) Beyond that, seems to recognise the divide between one's opinion and one's action needed for a bureaucrat, while alays any fears I'd have about the reconfirmation issues. WilyD 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. AGK (contact) 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - a trustworthy user who will make a great 'crat. krimpet✽ 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Neil's all right, he'll be fine. Acalamari 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Weak support Neil, I don't always agree with you, and I can actually think of specific cases where our opinions differ. However, you always are polite, civil, & fair, in my opinion, even to those who engage you. For these reasons, I trust that you will be an unbiased bureaucrat who one can trust to make difficult decisions. The only thing that makes this weak is the status on reconfirmation RfAs. нмŵוτнτ 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC) On second thought, move to neutral for now. нмŵוτнτ 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I went back to support, because, especially after seeing his answers to my questions, I trust him to close RfAs without letting his personal opinions get in the way. нмŵוτнτ 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Good answers to questions, not persuaded by opooses. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support I don't think recall is so bad, but it's not a critical issue. Overall good admin. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Substantial contributions so more likely to stay. Avoids WikiDrama per reconfirmation issues. If someone has serious issues against themselves they should quit being an admin, not make a big fuss about whether or not they should stay. Ansell 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support: Neil's judgement is good, and I'd trust him to gauge consensus at RfA. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Answers to the questions are satisfactory, and I trust Neil to gauge consensus at RfA. In reconfirmations, I trust that he will either judge consensus accurately regardless of his feelings, or oppose it and recuse himself from closing. GlassCobra 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
31. I wish a course of action other than prima facie opposition would be taken regarding reconfirmation RFAs. This adds to the drama factor around that process, rather than helping resolve it. But I think your answers to the questions are the best we've seen and I trust Neil to tell the difference between "serious concerns" and "character assassination". --JayHenry (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support I have faith in your ability to handle bureaucratship. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support per John Vandenberg.--Bedivere (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Sound judgment + good answers to questions + good track record as admin = Hurrah! Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I see no real problems here, a dedicated editor willing to serve us more, automatic reconfirmation opposition to re-adminship notwithstanding. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Support John254 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Proto is one of the good ones. Eusebeus (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - good admin, decent person, admits to being human on his user page. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - Articulate and level-headed. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    Neil's rebuttal in the case of Ryan's opposition is not taken on by any of the (many) opposers that follow Ryan - I think the rebuttal is highly relevant and speaks well for Neil's position (I leave in the middle whether I share the position.). Is this a matter of not hearing the argument from the other side? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 22:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

41. Support Jmlk17 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Support First and most importantly, I trust this candidate's judgment and integrity. After reading some of the opposes, I admit I might now also be supporting because I too find these reconfirmation RFAs unwarranted, unnecessary, and even unfair to first-time candidates or former administrators who are obliged to rerun a candidacy. I'd much prefer this type of reassurance or criticism being given in a less formal forum, or even an RFC. I wouldn't mind seeing this view in bureaucrats' discussions, provided Neil won't go bold and fail on these grounds; the community still seems to allow for these RFAs, after all. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support You can do it! --Endless Dan 13:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Trust the judgement entirely. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Per bot answers. MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Sensible admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Logic. User:Krator (t c) 15:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Good fellow, sound reasoning. Xoloz (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. When the great and the good of the Conservative Party chose leaders in the bad old days, the question they were said to ask was not "Is he electable?" but "Is he sound?". I asked myself the same question. The answer was yes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. It is very tempting to post "is better as an administrator," but I won't. (Neil will understand the reference.) The candidate's personal view regarding reconfirmation RfAs, which I regard as a source of unnecessary disputes although I usually support rather than oppose them, does not strike me as relevant here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
52. Support, Experienced and articulate, Derktar (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC).
53. Support Achromatic (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Certainly isn't pandering with the answer to my question 14, and it does make it clear what he opposes about reconfirmations - they cause unneeded drama and thus evidence poor judgment. That is valid reasoning, and perceiving poor judgment is a good reason to oppose an RFA candidate. GRBerry 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
55. support He knows enough not to try to close a reconfirmation RfA if he disagrees with the whole idea. Neither Admins nor B'crats have to agree with current policy, they just have to follow it. There is nothing in his record to indicate that he doesn't stick to what the agreed policy may be.DGG (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Answers to questions are (very) impressive. I don't like the fact he opposes all reconfirmations but I absolutely trust Neil to judge consensus fairly in these situations. GDonato (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
57. Support good admin, will make a good crat as well.   jj137 (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
58. Support intelligent, mature person- can be firm when he feels it necessary. Brings out the best in others. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 00:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Support; one of the "good guys". *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Viridae^Talk 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
61. An exceptionally good admin. Naerii (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support - trustworthy admin. Don't agree with him about everything, however his responses to the questions, especially Q2, are thoughtful and responsible. Addhoc (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
63. This editor also can internalize consensus. No concerns here. I'll support. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - I put a lot of thought into this. As I do have a lot of respect for Neil, this has been difficult for me to decide. I looked through a long list of adopters before requesting Neil adopt me almost a year ago, and there was a reason for that. As a newbie, looking at his userspace and contributions, he was approachable. He has a sense of humor that you don't find in everyone here. Not all admins would let their adoptees refer to them as "wiki-daddy", ya know? Anyway, I've read all of Neil's many replies and I understand his point of view, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, at least not in all cases, I do trust him to determine consensus in such RFAs without bias. I also believe he has the knowledge and experience to be a successful bureaucrat, and I'm not swayed by any of the opposes based on other factors. Lara_Love^Talk 05:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Standards for how to close RFAs are good. I have not always agreed with Neil, and he has an independent mind, but I think he'll tackle this task well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Support --- Indeedy. Xdenizen (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
67. Support. Thoughtful, authoritative, independent. MrPrada (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Meets my expectations for a crat. daveh4h 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
69. Support; --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
70. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
71. Support per LaraLove. I don't feel that Neil's views on reconfirmation RFA's are sufficient reason to oppose, nor do I get the sense that his biases would get in the way of his better judgement. He has a no-nonsense approach that I actually appreciate, even if it may come off as brisk to some. I think he will simply do the job needed of him well. — Zerida☥ 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
72. Kusma (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
73. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
74. Forte Supporte. One of the good uns. I'm pleased to endorse this candidate, and also pleased that all attempts to remove his sense of humor have failed so far.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
75. Support If Neil considers a user's desire to have a reconfirmation (which he sees as unnecessary drama) as grounds for opposing him/her, that is a valid opinion. You may disagree, but I see no grounds for opposing Neil based on this. Further, Neil has stated (and his record supports it) that he can set aside his opinions when called to do his duty as an impartial judge. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
76. Support, very impressed by the user's judgment as shown here. -- Visviva (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
77. Support for what it's worth - don't agree with many of his views, doesn't stop me from thinking he's a good guy who'd do play well with the toys. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per his position over reconfirmation RfAs. Neil believes they are unnecessary, for the record. Majorly (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I do, as stated above. I don't think this would impact upon my ability to judge consensus, however, and recognise that - at present - the community still considers them appropriate. Neıl ☎ 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   There are some people who don't like them. There are others who loathe them with a strong passion. I think you are closer to the second type of person. Sorry, but someone with such a strong opinion like that makes me question what they'd do with such an RfA. I've not seen anyone else with such a strong opinion on it. Majorly (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Boah, Majorly, don't you think it's kinda lame joining in on the "oppose per opinion about recall/reconfirmation RfA" stuff? Tactical, political voting like that is really crappy. Dorftrottel (taunt) 15:09, February 28, 2008

   No, not really. I'm a pretty lame person as it is. Majorly (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, let me rephrase: You're not a lame person at all, and so I'm surprised and mildly disappointed to see you oppose based on such flimsy grounds. Dorftrottel (taunt) 15:33, February 28, 2008

   Well, what Neil has done (oppose all reconfirmation RFAs, regardless of who is re-running) is, in a way, an equally flimsy grounded oppose. · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   But that's my point exactly. Joining in on silly stuff like that is at least equally off-putting. And I say that as a proponent of reconfirmation RfAs. Dorftrottel (complain) 16:11, February 28, 2008

   Reconfirmation RfAs, for those who could easily (re)gain access to the tools otherwise, are unnecessary. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose I opposed his first Rfa and though I supported his later bid for admin tools, I soon deeply regreted doing so. Neil is no where near my expectations for crat.--MONGO 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Why not? Neıl ☎ 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - disagreeing with reconfirmation RfA's is one thing (I don't personally like them) but opposing every candidate who partakes in one means I seriously question your judgement in the area that you want more responsibility. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'll point you to User talk:AO where I explain why I oppose reconfirmation RFAs in more detail. It is disheartening you (and Majorly) would oppose this RFB just because you don't like some of my "opposes" to RFAs. I don't believe my ability to judge consensus would be affected by my personal beliefs - I'm a fairly deletionist editor, but I close a lot of AFDs as "keep", and it's much the same thing. My own view is irrelevant. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   It's not because I don't like your opposes per se, I just question why you blanket oppose all RfAs that are reconfirmations. This is the sort of reasoning I would expect a bureaucrat to give less weight to, yet you're the one making the argument. I've read your response on AOs talk page, but your comments on RfAs previously give no indication of your mindset and they look like protest votes. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I blanket oppose them because I think requiring one is a strong sign of an oversensitive user who shouldn't have the tools. That's my opinion, I believe I'm allowed to express it, and it's no better or worse a reason to oppose and RFA than "lack of mainspace edits" or "too new" - are people who habitually oppose every candidate with less than 1000 edits also making "protest votes"? Neıl ☎ 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I've replied here, by the way. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I agree with ryan here, i think that blaket opposes just because you disagree with the concept of what they are doing is very close to being pointy. I do not know all the details but with my understanding I would have some concerns with your ability to subjectivly close RFA's in some situations. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   My talk page is always open if you would like to know all the details. Neıl ☎ 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose basically per Ryanpostlethwaite. Opposing to make a point or based on a general opinion of a process, rather than based on each candidate's individual merits, shows extremely poor judgment. I think you're a fantastic editor, but I simply wouldn't trust you entirely as a crat. VanTucky 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   That's what I was trying to say to Ryan - I oppose reconfirmaton RFAs precisely because I believe it shows a flaw in their personality ( a need for community appreciation) that makes them eminently unsuitable for adminship. It is judging in merit. It is unfortunate as it means I opposed some broadly popular admins getting their validation. Neıl ☎ 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   It doesn't matter what your reason for it is, blanket opposition is totally unacceptable in a bureaucrat candidate. It's not what you were opposed to, but the fact that you blanket oppose at all that makes you untrustworthy as a potential crat. The fact that you can't resist responding to just about every oppose vote trying to argue doesn't assuage my concerns about your abilities either. VanTucky 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose Again, per Ryan. Blanket opposition is, well, childish. It's also unbecoming of an admin (and I can say this as I used to share your opinion Neil, although I never acted on it, and I have changed my mind); It's totally undesirable in a 'crat. Effectively you're saying "My viewpoint can never be changed, irrespective of reasoned argument". Nope. No way. However I've only enjoyed positive interaction with Neil, from my early days on WP and I believe him to be a great and positive admin - a real asset, and I mean that. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   It's no different from blanket oppsing RFAs from people with less than 1000 edits, or from those with little or no mainspace contribution. That goes on all the time, but the reconfirmation opposes make me unpopular among a minority because it's their friends and colleagues I am opposing. Neıl ☎ 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   No Neil, and that re-inforces my oppose. It's totally different. Opposing for sub 1,000 edits is in line with community common practice/consensus/norms/wide held belief. Opposing due to reconfirmation isn't. Opposing due to sub 1,000 edits is basically sensible. Opposing due to reconfirmation basically isn't. Pedro :  Chat  23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I was unaware "holding the same opinions as Pedro" was a requirement for bureaucratship. Neıl ☎ 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

   And I was unaware that because you feel you've "failed" (which you haven't - you're a respected admin and that's no failure in my book) you feel that you need to have a dig at me. Pedro :  Chat  00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it is simply absurd to assert that something becomes reasonable simply by virtue of being in accordance with community practice/belief. The community has come to believe in certain requirements for adminship, but that does not make the mindless enforcement of such requirements any less mindless. In any event, we need editors at all levels who do not fear to aggressively question received wisdom. -- Visviva (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Ryan. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I place myself among the opposition with much reluctance. While Neil is a great editor, and an even better admin, the problem Ryan has pointed out renders me unable to support. I'm sorry. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, so reluctant am I, that I will abstain for the time being. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

8. Blanket-opposition isn't good. Also, I dislike Neil's answer to Q2, especially the part when Neil said All contentious nominations should pass by more than one set of eyes. Contentious noms, IMHO, is also a synonym for drama-RfA. If a load of sockpuppets show up, for example, yet the community clearly agrees that User Z would be a good admin, why open a crat chat? Maxim_(talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Why not open a chat? Is it really necessary to push recommendations through without discussions? If the opposition is clearly not based in the RFA community then it should be obvious after discussion, but not necessarily before that. Ansell 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Exactly - at least hold off until it's confirmed it is a basket of socks. If it is, no harm done. Neıl ☎ 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Ryan. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Opposing all reconfirmation RfAs just because they are reconfirmation RfAs seems to suggest behavior that I do not wish to see in a bureaucrat. Captain panda 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Per Ryan. Sorry. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
12. oppose While my opinion about reconfirmation RfAs agrees with much of Neil's reasoning, his response to them is not something I agree with. This is not a major issue but we can afford to be picky about who we select as crats. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Valid concerns raised. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Per above issues. Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose Getting snarky with an opposer (Pedro) is a bad sign and the edit summary (meh, I've failed anyway) makes me think being civil is only important as long as there is still the possibility of this passing. The requirement for being able to hold a civil conversation with someone you disagree with gets higher and higher the further up the food chain you get. For a bureaucrat it's quite high. In those cases, it's a good opportunity to show that you do have the temperament for the job (or not). RxS (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose - I was initially put off by the candidate's sweeping statement regarding the opposition of reconfirmations, but what pushed me over the edge was the contentiousness of his response to Pedro. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Wisdom89. Prodego ^talk 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose Again, as per Ryan, but I also have another comment. The user stated that he thinks "Does not need the tools" is a poor response in an RFA, but wouldn't this response, with a correct explanation, be a vaild reason for a user not to be promoted? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Answered my own question. Still oppose. Sorry. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 04:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose - found this user to be too moody: [1] is just an example. 'Crats should be the creme of the crop. Sorry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    If that's the best example of incivility you've been able to find, I think I'm okay. Neıl ☎ 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose per Ryan. Spencer^T♦C 20:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Weak oppose I am not particularly concerned about the reconfirmation issues Ryan et al. raise—for various reasons, I don't see categorical opposition to reconfirmation candidates to be demonstrative of poor judgment or an unwillingness to comport one's editing with certain norms—and I am not particularly concerned about the candidate's (perhaps) less-than-complete familiarity with BRfA, and so I don't join in many of the opposes supra, but I do have concerns about the candidate's temperament (per, for one, The Evil Spartan) and willingness to subordinate his own views to those of the community when acting ministerially qua bureaucrat, and so I am unable to support. Joe 22:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose per civility concerns and views on reconfirmation RFAs. Epbr123 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. His view on reconfirmation RfAs is fundamentally wrong, and betrays an attitude of contempt for the community. Both admins and bureaucrats need to be responsive to popular opinion, and should always be willing to submit themselves to a test of the community's confidence. I don't trust that he is able to do that. Walton^One 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose Per strict belief of Reconfirmation RFAs and because of the uncivil interaction with Pedro. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose due to inflexible attitude on reconfirmation RFAs and overly sensitive reaction to Pedro's oppose. Singopo (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose due to problems with civility when his temper flares up. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose, per above. Dreadstar † 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose. His argumentative approach to other opposes suggests he doesn't have the right temperament. Cowardly Lion (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose, temperament doesn't seem right for a bureaucrat (too argumentative). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
31. There are already enough 'crats to disagree with, no need for more, especially since it appears that I disagree much more with the newer ones then with the older ones. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Per Ryan's oppose. Waiting for answers to Hmwith's questions. Would like to point out that Neil is an exceptionally capable user, but clarification on judgement (which would seem to be indicated by the answers to the yet unanswered questions) will help me to decide whether to remain neutral or to support. Also, a little too inactive in areas where bureaucrats should operate. Rudget. 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral for the time being. I would like to see the answers to my questions before making further judgment. I will make a decision, but I'd like to see opinions of editors on both sides to help me make up my mind, and I can be swayed either direction, at this point. нмŵוτнτ 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Went back to support. нмŵוτнτ 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

   Unsure at the moment - I place this here to register my position, noting I do not intend to leave my vote as neutral, because it seems sort of pointless to do so. I have a lot of respect for Neil. He was my adopter and, while he didn't do much in the position, looking at his edits did help guide me to a point. I've found myself disagreeing with Neil's positions on various matters since I gained adminship, which isn't in itself an issue, however I am, like others, concerned with his passionate disapproval of reconfirmation RFAs. I agree that in many cases it's a pointless process. I often agree with the assumption that the user just wants a pat on the back, bThut I also believe to assume that is to assume bad faith. So I prefer to squash that thought, as it's really irrelevant to judging one's ability to use the tools appropriately, and I judge them based on their editing and previous admin actions. Ultimately, the project is in need of more competent admins, so to oppose a candidate who is an asset to the project and would again serve well as an admin solely because they've chosen to go through a reconf as opposed to just asking for the tools back seems counter-productive to me. It is my opinion that to do so is not in the best interest of the project, rather a disregard for it. The very definition of a protest vote. So, to sum it up, I feel Neil's disdain for reconf RFAs, and his willingness to disregard the best interest of the project, to be a poor show of judgment, particularly for someone who would be in a position to close such RFAs. RFAs which tend to be close because of protest votes, so I question his ability to attribute the proper weight to such "lame" opposes considering he's the forerunner of that position. Lara❤Love 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Changing to support. Lara_Love^Talk 04:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

   But surely in his opinion he's not disregarding the best interest of the project. A reconfirmation can be seen as an indicator of dramallamery. I presume we mostly all agree that dramaseeking admins are not helpful to the project. Friday (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   The community already decided that the reconfirming user was capable of using the tools appropriately, otherwise they wouldn't have a sysop bit in the first place. A rubber-stamp RFA is a pointless exercise, yet I oppose not because they are intrinsically a pointless exercise, but because I don't necessarily trust the judgement of any admin who thinks they require one. Again, though, this is my opinion, and my opinion - no matter how strongly held - wouldn't affect my judgement when it comes to closing RFAs. I could lie and say I don't hold that opinion any more, or try and brush it under the rug so to speak, but I'd rather fail RFB and tell the truth then lie and pass. I'd like to think I can tell the truth and pass, but we'll see. Neıl ☎ 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe a compromise is in order? Because of your strong POV, which I agree you are perfectly entitled to and 100% agree that you shouldn't change to swing a vote on an RFB: regarding reconfirmation RFAs, perhaps a statement somewhere from you (a pledge even) that you would refrain and abstain from closing them, and once a 'crat, from participating in them completely, regardless of the situation? There isn't an RFA in existence, nor will there ever be, where you would be the only 'crat available to close; any other crat could take these. I personally don't see this one little thing as a good rationale or sole reason for an oppose vote here, but perhaps an assurance of sorts that you wouldn't allow your POV to surface with a reconfirmation RFA would ease the opposers good faith opposition. If, after making this pledge, you did close an RFB, you could be recalled. Which, and this is so WT:RFA, makes me think, is there a CAT:BOR, similar to CAT:AOR? Let's try it...CAT:BOR...hmm. and show preview...hmm. Red...and now Save page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2. (grunt, gasp, nngh) Can't get off fence/neutral - the answers to the questions I am happy with above, and made me lean to a support, but I recalled the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT couples debate which was closed as 'delete' part-way through by Neil as a questionable call, as I do not feel he was being impartial. Not a huge one in itself, and I can probably be described as an inclusionist, so my view is not impartial either really. Also, someone which has "I also think Wikipedia has around a million articles more than it need have" on their userpage is so far diverged from my vision of WP I just can't reconcile it with mine at all. However, I concede I am not impartial either and may change either way depending on how this falls out (i.e. further evidence). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Can't bring myself to either oppose or support. I dislike any blanket supporting/opposing, as each person should be judged by itself, but also Neil is a great user, so I have to stay neutral. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - Neil's usually a great admin, cool-headed and all that, and he would probably do OK as a 'crat. The thing I'm worried about is the blanket opposition. There are some reconfirmation RfAs that are totally necessary. I'll see about his answer to my (forthcoming) question, that may make things clearer. And Neil, I do trust you not to pander to me in your answer. You're too good for that. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I can see where both sides are coming from on this one, and I may still lean either way later. I think you have done a good job overall as an admin, and I do not think you would severely abuse the bureaucrat tools, however there are some concerns that prevent me from supporting. First, the blanket opposition to reconfirmation RFAs, of course every user is entitled to their own opinion, but I think you would be a better bureaucrat if you were a little bit more open minded on this, and would assess the merit of every case individually. Keeper76 (talk · contribs) suggestion above is not a bad idea given the circumstances. I hope you learnt lessons on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT couples, but it does leave questions open on judgement. Next, attitude. The case The Evil Spartan (talk · contribs) makes is not an example of awful incivility, but it does come off as rude and unhelpful, even if that was not the intention. The response you have given to this oppose does not increase my confidence - bureaucrats are supposed to be very approachable. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
7. I too am on the fence with this as I feel a bureaucrat should remove personal feeling from decisions and stick to the decided upon process. The entire blanket opposition to admin-recall does not sit entirely well with me but it does not give me reason to oppose - or support - at this time. --Ozgod (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above 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.