Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pengo

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

[edit] Pengo

Final (47/11/3) Ended 10:30:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pengo (talk · contribs) – I have been a member of Wikipedia since 2003, and have been editing regularly since. Some of my more notably contributions are the Iberian Ribbed Newt, the creation of Beastie Bot to correct the conversation status of thousands of species, and I frequent Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science where I answer and ask questions. I've avoided requesting adminship until now because I have felt I can mostly get by without it, simply by talking to users where there is a conflict, having my say in RfDs, or requesting special functions (like moving pages) from Sysops when necessary. Recently, however, I've found it increasingly difficult to do what I've been doing. For example, the taxobox template, which I have worked on in the past, has become protected after being vandalised, and this seems to be a growing trend for templates. I would also like to help with the backlog of articles needing to be moved (as I know I've needed this plenty of times, although I mostly request it on IRC), and closing RfDs. I would also revert vandalism when I see it, and have reverted plenty of vandalism and misplaced remarks, but could do so much better with the sysop revert tool thingy. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 10:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept (self nom)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would mainly deal with what I've needed or been involved with myself as a user:

• Requested moves
• Treating users respectfully who have uploaded possibly unfree images
• Investigating open proxies (I've been banned numerous times for sharing an ISP (with a transparent proxy) with a banned user, although the bug causing that is fixed now).
• Closing requests for deletion
• Look into automating, or partially automating, some admin tasks

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

• I'm happy with my article on the Iberian Ribbed Newt, which I originally only started to have a place to put the photos, but has become a fairly authorative source on the space missions this amphibian has flown.
• Beastie Bot, which cleaned up a large number of conservation statuses, and added thousands of proper references for them too.
• Superseded scientific theory, which has probably been the most added-to article I've started.
• I've put some work into getting Organic (disambiguation) into an orderly state too, and have had to create some articles and learn some things about organicness to do so.
• On Wikimedia Commons I've added a large number of image keys to the plates of Kunstformen der Natur. Some of the images have been featured image of the day on Wikipedia.
• On IRC, when wikipedia has gone down, I've relayed status messages to #wikipedia from various sources and calculated time estimates, meanwhile the regulars were simply complaining about the number of users logging in (and looking for some status information).
• Some of the other articles and images I've contributed are listed on my user pages, although not comprehensively.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Sure, I've had "edit conflicts". But I've found lateral solutions to satisfy all parties involved. For example, the only time I've gotten to 3 revert limit was on IPA chart for English, where one party wanted some not-so-redundant information removed, while another (including myself) wanted it kept. I suggested a way to present the information that made both sides happy, and it was implemented and agreed upon without having to force either side to back down (and I didn't even have to make the edit myself): see Talk:IPA_chart_for_English#RP_vowels.

I have also resolved others' conflicts, such as over the definition of hacker by splitting the Hacker article into two (in this case, into Hacker and Hacker (computer security)). Which quietened the conflict within the article somewhat.

Question from Andeh

4. Hello Pengo, in answer one you mentioned carrying out "Closing requests for deletion", could you please be more specific on this? Deletion could mean deleting categories, images, articles, templates and so on. Thank you.

A: I had articles in mind, although I might try my hand at images, templates and miscellany also.

5. Hi again, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations? (They should still be on your watchlist) Thanks.

A: I was planning on closing, rather than opening AfD's. I've requested at least one article be deleted ... but I can't find it. Must have been speedy. (I have a lot of red links in my watchlist, because I add non-articles so I can see when they're created) I have added comments to numerous AfD's. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must oppose, as you appear to have little to no experience in AfDs and vandal fighting, which is what you want to do as an admin. Other than that, you are a great editor, not quite a janitor.--Andeh 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an experienced editor? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't seek adminship for banning people; but if a user, whether experienced or not, is being repeatedly disruptive and ignoring discussion about it, then a temporary ban may be needed to direct them towards their talk page. I don't see myself banning anyone for anything less than extreme circumstances. Of course circumstances are circumstances, and pre-empting the circumstances under which I'd use ban privledges is like asking me to create manditory sentencing (of which I'm not a fan) or making up a whole circumstance to draw a line in the sand. Legislators don't cover every situation and instead let judges flesh out the details of a particular case.

7 What's the most critical step before doing a speedy delete?

A: Assuming this is simply meant as a quiz question, I'd assume you're referring to checking the history to make sure no proper article (or category or whatever) hidden in the history is being deleted (e.g. after being moved to a silly title by a vandal). Equally critical, before speedy deleting, is checking that the reasons for deletion are valid and appropriate for a speedy delete...but I'm guessing that's not the answer you had in mind (I'm not sure how you judge "most critical", critical to whom? I have to say, you've asked a poor question). If you asked what I, personally, consider the most important step overall, which is the question I'd prefer to answer, I'd say it is to inform the authors of the article that their work is on the chopping block. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Automated data

• See Pengo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count on talk page. --ais523 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm pleased to be the first second (edit conflict) to weigh in on this discussion, and per a brief overview of the user's contributions to Wikipedia, I feel that I can safely say that he is not only extremely qualified to use the extra buttons, but that Wikipedia would certainly be better off by making Pengo an administrator, for he seems to capture the essence of a model Wikipedian hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am taking these accusations of lack of process for using IRC quite seriously. Whether IRC should or shouldn't be used: the fact is it is used, and not just by me. Instead of debating whether using IRC is against procedure, I've proposed a procedure for when sysops use IRC to listen to Move Requests, which for now I've put on the village pump (policy) page: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Requesting_administrator_assistance_on_IRC. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support well-grounded editor and potential admin. Rama's arrow 12:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian - Talk 14:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Long-term contributor with broad experience, particularly strong on images. Espresso Addict 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support -- valuable long-term editor whom I incorrectly assumed was already an admin. Unlikely to abuse sysop tools. - Longhair 16:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - excellent long term contrib, like Longhair I thought the +sysop flag was already assigned. -- Tawker 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support as per everyone above me. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - Adminship should be no big deal. He's been around Wikipedia ages, and hasn't fucked things up yet. You don't have to "learn" about RC Patrolling or anything. Just continue as you have done but with a few more useful tools. - Hahnchen 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. John254 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support He has been here for quite a long time with a vast range of experience. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Will use the mop wisely. Space-walking newts - who knew? - BaseballBaby 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Michael 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nom and above Hello32020 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per above. Some P. Erson 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - Why the hell not? --Aaron 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Was going to Support earlier, but I had to go to class. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Great user, will make a fine admin. --Nishkid64 23:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support no doubt. Stubbleboy 23:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support (edit conflict) Sounds good to me.-- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Have had good experiences with the user in the past. Will do a great job. InvictaHOG 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Satisfies all my conditions totally. Would like you to start participating in more AFD's--Ageo020 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - long overdue. —Khoikhoi 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Locriani 07:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Support --Mcginnly | Natter 13:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC) changed to oppose. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

24. Support. The reasons for opposition are well-intentioned, but don't convince me. Pengo looks like a fine candidate to me. Dmcdevit·t 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, experienced and level-headed editor. Most of the oppose votes aren't convincing; as I see it, vandal patrolling and 'process knowledge' do not necessarily make for good admin material; a cooperative attitude and significant main namespace contributions do. — mark ✎ 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Tony Sidaway 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) I think it's intriguing that this RFA on a 2003-vintage editor has so far only attracted 2003-level attention. Pengo should have the bit because there is every reason to believe that he will use it as wisely as he has, over the course of three years, used his Wikipedia account.
27. Support Looks fine...just at least help us fight the vandalism an hour or two a week and I'll be happy.--MONGO 10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support: long term editor; seems at ease with the project. Stephen B Streater 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Very experienced and has a helpful attitude. huntersquid 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support 13:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidJJJ (talk • contribs) .
31. Support --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support - Excellent user, with good judgment and strong initiative.--ragesoss 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support And I dont see the big deal with using IRC to speed things along, I mean c'mon whats the big deal? TruthCrusader 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support I can't see why not. —Jared Hunt September 23, 2006, 10:22 (UTC)
35. Support: I see no evidence he'll misuse the tools, even accidentally (do look up the difference between blocking and banning though). TimBentley (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support quite impressive credentials and seems to be a generally good guy. I do not see problems with using IRC or Email in gettings sysops attention nor in WP:SNOW for the clear cut actions. abakharev 08:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    My argument is - who's to decide what is and what isn't a clear cut action? - if it's done on wikipedia then fine, we all get to have a say - if not you've essentially disenfranchised people not on IRC from particpating in the debate. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

37. Support. I agree with the opposers that process is very important. However, I think this is WP:RM stuff is being blown out of proportion. That Pengo can tell which moves will be uncontroversial speaks to his experience. Like many of the opposers, I also despise any SeekritIrcGoingsOn, but from what I've read here the IRC requests are for actions that an admin (whether Pengo, myself, or others) would normally do without consulting anybody. Like "hey, this guy is doing nothing but writing 'penis', please block him." For uncontroversial actions that an admin would perform on sight, no point adding red tape. If all admins did was follow rules then we would replace them with bots. Everything an admin does is logged and undoable. The reason we have admins vs editors is that we filter for people that have a certain amount of experience and judgement. I believe Pengo does have this experience and judgement. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-24 23:31Z
38. Support, opposition appears to stem from a disappointing level of paperwork-fetishism. So far as I can tell he has done good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support - Adminship should be "no big deal" and Pengo has never done anything for me to doubt his competence. People obsessing on process wonkery should go back to original Wikipedia ideals. He's been here since 2003 before all these so-called "processes" became an obsession. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. I'd prefer more XfD experience, but given the amount of time he's been here I'm not concerned he'll abuse the tools. BryanG^(talk) 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong Support - committed to doing constructive work, which is important, and also does well at refdesk explaining things, which is good; admins need to fix up misunderstanding.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Experienced editor. No reason to not trust him. Also, should be allowed to edit stuff like the important taxobox. --Ligulem 13:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Looks like a reliable, experienced editor. I don't understand this fuss about requesting moves on IRC. You'd think you were supposed to avoid being bold. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Will clearly be a constructive admin, with valuable technical skills. Virtually no risk of abuse. Borisblue 04:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Seems fine to me. NoSeptember 11:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Singopo 12:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would like to see more AfD experience.Dlohcierekim 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   For an editor who clearly is experienced though, why should it matter if he's not experienced in a single process? Even if he chooses to work there, his prior good judgment persuades me that he wouldn't muck it up, and he'd learn it well anyway. It's a wiki, after all. Dmcdevit·t 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   As one task he desires admin tools for is deletions, I thought more AfD experience might be helpful. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose wants to close AfDs, fight vandalism. Yet the user has no experience on either.--Andeh 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose: After three years here, still doesn't know how to do a proper move request. The request here was not coupled with even a move tag, let alone a discussion area. A non-admin notes the omission at Talk:Interlock (engineering). Can I vote for Tariqabjotu instead? I found this lack of process knowledge after 5 min. of looking through contributions so I'm scared of what I'd find through 3 years more. Together with a nasty comment in an answer at his own RFA above, this is an easy vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   At the risk of inflaming this and also at the risk of giving any further reviewers of this RfA far too much to read, I'd like to explain the above action. That move was a straight forward case that I cannot imagine being contested. I didn't see any need for additional process, and believed any reasonable sysop seeing the request could simply use their own judgement, which is the usual case when I request a move. However, every other move request I've done has been done on IRC, and I have always been greeted with a fast and diligent response from a helpful sysop, and it has always required almost no process or discussion (the moves, like this one, have been trivial and obvious). In some ways, requesting the move on Wikipedia was a test to see if I could gain the same helpful response within Wikipedia itself. Note that currently Interlock (engineering) is the only page on the topic of interlocks and already redirects from Interlock. Yes, I left off the move tag, but do you really think the move needs discussion and a vote? It obviously should be moved to the later title, and I wrongly assumed I could get this done simply by alerting a sysop, as I have done many times on #wikipedia. These layers of unnecessary process in trivial matters is much of the reason why I wish to become a sysop: to help others who would otherwise suffer wikistress from the situation or simply not bother. I am more than happy and capable of following lengthier process or to help others to do so when it is appropriate. As for my previous comments, I guess one man's constructive criticism is another's "nasty". —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry but I don't buy it. The steps for requesting a page move are there for a reason. I've seen an apparent WP:SNOW in one direction turn into a WP:SNOW in the other direction numerous times and it's not a sufficient reason to bypass process IMHO. The page that was originally at Interlock (now at Interlock (disambiguation)) was split up and turned into a proper dab page all the way back in November 2005 and stayed that way with no one complaining for almost 10 months. That doesn't sound like a WP:SNOW situation to me. The smoky back room (#wikipedia) approach to process sounds very unadmin'ish to me as well. Another quick double-check scan of contributions shows keep votes here and here with no mention of anything related to WP:N. And absolutely no vandal stopping (as others pointed out). Maybe I'm missing something but you seem like a great and knowledgable editor with almost zero indication of admin-like behavior in three years. Someone please point out the error in my thinking and I'll be happy to reconsider. And explain the support votes that say process knowledge doesn't matter for an admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   As un-adminish as using IRC is, after dealing with some incredibly needless bureaucracy and pencil pushing at WP:RM (Talk:Ralph Macchio), it is where I now go for page moves. That, and db-move. - Hahnchen 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose per candidate's answer to Wknight94 immediately above - i.e. the assumption that #wikipedia is a substitute for or improvement on the normal processes - and the concerns raised by Andeh. An argument from WP:IAR or WP:BB I would have accepted, but not the one given as it seems to me that very many administrative dramas can be traced to reliance on #wikipedia, mailing lists, &c, rather than on-WP communication. YMMV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   Err.. I did link to WP:SNOW above, which is along the same lines as WP:IAR and WP:BB. I also do prefer to do things on Wikipedia rather than #wikipeida, which is why I attempted to. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 09:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   Nobody argues against BB/IAR which are core, but SNOW is controversial: just ask badlydrawnjeff. In view of recent dramas I won't be changing my opinion this time round. Let's call it unfortunate timing. Generally I don't bother reading RFAs, let alone express an opinion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   WP:SNOW is not controversial, it's self-evident. When one or a small group disagrees witha policy or practice, that does not make it controversial, it makes those people outliers. If your disagree with the moving of Rain barrels to Rain barrel without process, because it's controversial, that's so extreme as to be silly. You don't need to point to a policy for that, just point at your head. Dmcdevit·t 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

   I try to look at the bigger picture. If the candidate prefers to use IRC, then I don't know, and you don't know either, what other pages were moved via his and one admin's interpretation of SNOW. I'm not willing to support someone who thinks that IRC is a satisfactory alternative to on-WP communication. Seems crystal clear to me. This is a wiki after all, which provides perfectly good means of communication which leave a record for all to see. Sure, ignore all rules, be bold, but be seen to be doing it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per above, and not because I'm namechecked. Answers and responses cause more concern than I had when this started. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per failure of my criteria. Themindset 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose (changed from support) (changed to neutral). I don't have IRC - why are you acting out of process - worrying?--Mcginnly | Natter 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

   Worrying? No. Trying to get stuff done? Yes. I do not understand why you are opposing. I have used Wikipedia's official IRC channel to request trivial page moves, in public, on #wikipedia, Wikipedia's public channel which has 250 people in it at any one time. I did not solicit any sysops privately, but always made my requests fully public. If the moves were in any way controversial I would have used the normal process on Wikipedia. Obviously they weren't or sysops would not have gone through with them. I laregely edit nature-related articles, and not politics, so it's rare anything would be controversial. Frankly I cannot even remember any articles in question, and I do not keep logs of my IRC sessions. You could try finding articles that have been moved by a sysop within a few minutes of me editing. I can only suggest you are assuming bad faith. I have also helped many people on IRC too, and kept Wikipedians up-to-date with status information when Wikipedia has gone down — Wikipedia's "error" page links to the Wikipedia IRC channel. If you would like to know more about IRC or why I would use such a medium, please ask futher questions, but please do not assume bad faith. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

   The most recent example I can find is I requested for Rain barrels -> Rain barrel, which was carried out speedily by administrator Luna Santin and also looked at by Alphachimp. I made the request on, yes, Wikipedia's official IRC channel, and not on Wikipedia itself. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 04:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

   I thought the idea of the move procedures was that uncontroversial moves can be done by anyone (although how are you supposed to know whether it's going to be controversial or not), but moves which people may take issue with are posted on wiki so the community can decide what to do? By using off-wiki channels you risk disenfranchising non IRC using wikipedians from the process. I don't remember the policy being changed so that I'll have to hang out on IRC so I know what's going on within wikipedia. You cite expediency as your reason for this - if it's a problem, too slow etc. why haven't you suggested a policy change? To suggest I'm assuming bad faith because I have valid concerns about you attitude to process is frankly, even more worrying. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

   Just noting that uncontroversial moves to a page with history need an admin (I assume Rain barrels was initially a redirect to Barrel or something like that). TimBentley (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

   If that was the case - there's a channel for it here on wikipedia where we all live and love. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Andeh. Cynical 10:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Mcginnly, Andeh, answers to questions and tone of replies above. --Storkk 11:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Andeh and Wknight - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per unconvincing answers.--Húsönd 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Wknight. I get the feeling the candidate has not mastered the delicate art of when process must be followed and when IAR (Interpret All Rules, that is) may be applied. Xoloz 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    Can I assume that interpretation of WP:IAR was a joke? Stephen B Streater 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, you want to revert vandalism (as stated in your nom) but I found no user talk warnings anywhere. Your user talk edit count isn't that huge either. You look like a very good editor, but not quite admin material just yet. Please learn about RC patrolling and other janitorial tasks and I will surely support in the future.--Andeh 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Must oppose per answers.--Andeh 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Editor clearly has lots of experience with various aspects of Wikipedia, so I don't want to oppose. However, as mentioned above by Andeh and others, there's a mismatch between his interest in the deletion process and his editing experience, so I can't fully support. --Alan Au 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'm a tad confused about some of this myself - people are opposing for Pengo not following process? I want to say support as process is the enemy of WP:IAR, but I'm a tad confused by Pengo's response to the concerns over process. There seems to be a desire to increase the instruction creep a bit to set things more in stone, but the encyclopedia often relies on flexible rules instead of process. Some clarification on this end might be helpful. Cowman109^Talk 00:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral There seems to be no consensus regarding IRC and process and your views are widely shared amongst some existing administrators. Whilst I'm not sure this a good thing I do think it's not quite fair to you, to have this issue trip up your RfA because in most other respects I believe you will make an ok administrator - The issue is now being discussed at the village pump because of your instigation, which I welcome. I would urge you to consider that many users don't use IRC and any matters relating to policy and process should be resolved in-wiki. My vote is neutral rather than support because I wasn't enormously enamoured with the tone of your reply above. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.