Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous Dissident 2

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

Anonymous Dissident

(165/1/2) final Raul654 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) - Dear fellow Wikipedians....

I'm simply delighted to announce Anonymous Dissident as a candidate for adminship.

Anonymous Dissident, has had a previous RfA fail over CSD concerns. He has since improved greatly as an editor, and has really improved on his speedy deletion tagging. As admins will notice, he appropriately nominates many page for speedy deletion. ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ). He is a good vandal-fighter. He correctly recognizes vandalism, reverts it, and appropriately warns the user. ( [6] [7] [8] [9] ) As well as reverting and warning users, he correctly reports persistent vandals to WP:AIV ([10] which lead to this)

Anonymous Dissident is an amazing article writer. His mainspace contributions are very well balanced with his reverts. He has written over 60 articles, and a glance on his talkpage on August 26 reveals 11 DYK notices, and he had two in a day. As well, his userpage says that he has created 92 different articles, 27 templates, and he also founded WikiProject Malta. He has contributed extensively to 4 good articles. Not many users can boast something like this.

I offered to nominate Anonymous Dissident around July, completely unaware of his previous unsuccessful RfA. He declined, and told me he wanted to wait. I took the opportunity to observe his editing patterns, and I found him to be a very mature and trustworthy user. He doesn't lose his cool, and he is a polite and responsible user. He is very prepared for this new set of responsibilities. Maxim(talk) 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Wizardman: Well, I know a great potential administrator when I see one (we've figured that out by now), and Anonymous Dissident may be one the better hidden secrets yet. Well, he's been on the RfA talk page, at DYK, and elsewhere, so he's certainly not hidden. As Maxim has pointed out, he has been great at all aspects of Wikipedia, and I think that having him as an admin would be very beneficial to the Wikipedia community. His contributions pretty much speak for themselves. Wizardman 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by DarkFalls I first met Anonymous Dissident on the talk page (ironically) of the requests for adminship process. Since then, he has proven himself to be a thoughtful and experienced user, editing in various fields of article and project related tasks. I believe he will make a great and helpful admin, with his incredible article creation skills, sound judgement, and phenomenal DYK entries. In administrator-related tasks, I believe that AD will be able to help in new page patrol and clearing of CAT:CSD and the blocking of disruptive users and problematic usernames. In closing, I believe that Anonymous Dissident will be a great asset to Wikipedia as an administrator and it is my pleasure to co-nom such a prolific editor. --DarkFalls talk 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Melsaran: I am honoured to co-nominate Anonymous Dissident for adminship. He has been with us for 7 months now, and in that time he accounted almost 10,000 edits, well-spread across the namespaces. He is a regular at WP:RFCN, where his comments are always constructive and polite, he is involved with WikiProject Malta, which he founded, and has written many fine articles. I truly believe that having Anonymous Dissident as an administrator would benefit the project greatly, and hope that you will consider granting him the mop. Melsaran (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with a huge amount of gratitude for the well-written nom(s). -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My intent is to use the tools in a wide variety of areas; to block vandals reported at WP:AIV and inappropriate usernames reported at WP:UAA, participate, determine consensus, and act accordingly at WP:RFC/N, close XFDs which have consensus from the community to either keep or delete and see if I can help with the numerous posts at WP:ANI. These are areas to which I already participate on a fairly regular basis, and I feel I could use the administrative tools to the community's advantage in these areas. However, I feel that, in addition to these areas, which are areas that already enjoy a good deal of administrative attention, I could use the tools in more obscure, and often backlogged, areas, such as checking deleted contributions at WP:USURP (where I already clerk, on occasion), helping clear the T:DYK backlog (and helping to make sure updates there are as on time as possible), and possibly, despite my relative inexperience in this area, helping to clear the backlog that seems to pervade WP:SSP.
Finally, I would, just as I said at my last RFA, participate in clearing the CSD backlog. This deserves, as far as I can see, a little section to itself, because several mistakes relating to this particular area made by me was the main reason my last RFA was withdrawn. I had had problems determining and understanding the criteria for speedy deletion, and even after my first RFA, it seemed I could still not properly comprehend it, when people still remarked on my incorrect tagging with CSD tags. It was then that I realised that it was a problem, stopped tagging new pages for a while, sat down, and thoroughly read the CSD, and then I re-read it. I feel now that, after doing this, that I should not have any further issues in this area, and have not since figuratively burning the CSD right into my skull.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My articles. I have written 92 articles on Wikipedia, of which 61 have been featured on the main page as part of DYK, and of which 4 are good articles.Article writing is something I greatly enjoy doing - it gives one a sense of satisfaction and pride in hard work, and I figure its what this project is really about: the content.
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: As I am now, I don't usually, and try not to get into conflicts. However, I know that, if I become an admin, conflicts are inevitable, because of the nature of the access. To try and answer this question, I will refer to my earlier days at Wikipedia. Shortly after coming here, I began writing articles on a variety of subjects. While some were accepted, and were acceptable content, a few were deleted/merged/redirected. One of these included an article on Umaril The Unfeathered, some character from a computer game I used to play. Someone proposed a merging of the content into a certain list of characters from the game, to my annoyance. However, after a bit of a debate, the decision was that the content was merged. After this, I conceded that it was probably for the best, and that I had realised my mistake.
How would I deal with conflicts in the future? I think that is important to remember to be polite and respectful of the the person. If I were to start to feel unable to continue being polite, respectful and tolerant, then I would know that it is time to press the little red 'X' tab at the top right hand corner of the page, and take a little break from Wikipedia, for a necessary amount of time. I think that trying to see then other person's point of view also helps a great deal.

Optional from User:Navou

4. Is your password a strong password as defined by "..no dictionary words and sufficiently long, random, or otherwise producible only by the user who chose it, such that successfully guessing it will require too long a time".
A: mine is a password that I would define as strong; it is something that does not exist in the English language, and it is alphanumeric. I would say it is pretty much impossible to guess randomly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4.1Could you briefly explain the relationship between voting and consensus generating discussion (or difference)?
A: As is stated at WP:CON, Wikipedia works by building consensus through community discussion, and, as stated at WP:VOTE, decisions here in the project "are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus". As is also stated, voting or polling should be used with care because such a process is particularly liable to several significant flaws, in regards to the decision that is made and how it is made, and proper community discussion encourages many productive and good things; as is stated at WP:VOTE, the best solution to an issue can often be missed simply because it was not one of the options in a vote situation. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional but cool question by JetLover'

5. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would you change?
A: I'm not sure, actually. I think that several Wikipedia processes, perhaps, including, possibly, the RFA system, may possibly need some review, but I also think that Wikipedia's general, internal structure is fairly good, and I think its goal and purpose are good, and to the benefit of mankind as a whole. Wikipedia continues to prosper, flourish, and grow continually larger. I think that it is a marvelous project. I just wish that the world recognised it as more reliable; much of the time, the content here is well sourced and fairly reliable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Dekimasu

6. When, if ever, is it appropriate to treat young Wikipedians differently from other editors?
A: There are several instances where this probably should occur; the most major and prominent example of when it is appropriate to treat young Wikipedians differently, I think, is the restriction to certain access levels, such as Oversight. On an aside, it is important to note that Wikipedia is not censored [for minors]. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Rspeer

7. If you become an admin, you will of course have the ability to block users, but in checking your contributions I found an edit that makes me think you take blocking too lightly. You once recommended that User:Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!, a long-existing account with good-faith contributions, should be indefinitely blocked on the sole basis that the username would be difficult to type into the search box. Do you still feel that this was justified? Do you think it is reasonable to apply the username policy by indefinitely blocking even minor offenses? Why was this course of action preferable to using the {{UsernameConcern}} template on the user's talk page?
A: In heinsight, I feel a report to WP:RFCN, where the community could discuss the name, would have been more appropriate. Of course, had I taken this action, I would first have placed {{UsernameConcern}} on the users talk page, and then waited for a response: they may have been very willing to change their username. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Anonymous Dissident before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support as nom. Maxim(talk) 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've seen AD around a bunch, and I have little concern about his mop wielding. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support All my interactions with AD have been positive. He's also good at interacting with others. Has use for the tools and will be a good Admin. Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support without hesitation. A fabulous article writer, and a great member of our encyclopedia. Should be excellent. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. edit conflict support I've only seen good contributions from AD, who seems to be active in many different areas of WP, and I'd trust him with the mop. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. EC * 3 support. I've seen him a lot around WT:RFA. Great article writer and user in general, would make a great admin. — Malcolm (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Yes, finally I get to !vote for this guy. Article writer, vandal fighter, template creator. Yes, yes, yes. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Been watchlisted support :-). ~ Wikihermit 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - absolutely. - Philippe | Talk 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I leave to grab a bite and I'm this far down already? Wow. Support as co-nom. Wizardman 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I've just spent the last 20 minutes going through your contribs and I've got to say I'm very impressed, I couldn't fault you and I think you will be fine with the extra couple of buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (edit conflict)#Über support - I wanted to nominate him, but Wizardman and Maxim got there first. :) He will make an excellent admin! Good luck! I'm impressed! Neranei (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support: User would make a great admin, on top of his great contributions he has shown that he cared enough about the project to take the time to address the concerns raised in his last RFA. Nothing here worth opposing over. IvoShandor 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - absolutely. Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support I offered to nominate him last month, but he wanted to allow a decent interval since last RfA - which he has done. A quite excellent editor, who has shown a deep level of understanding of wiki policy and of wiki procedures, and who has clearly addressed the concerns raised in his last RfA. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Fully qualified candidate with a strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Duh! Give them the tools. Jmlk17 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strongest support humanely possible. This dude isn't an admin?!? ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?! AR Argon 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom. Good luck Carlosguitar 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, looks solid to me - no obvious trouble spots. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I have been waiting to see this RfA come around again. This user is extremely active here on enwiki, I have seen him on more than a few of my RC refreshes, its actually a bit unnerving to recognise someone so much on RC!.... But I say an active admin is a good admin. It will be good to have AD with the admin tools. aliasd·U·T 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I've seen AD around, and all sightings have left me with no reason to oppose. J-stan TalkContribs 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose for launching this RfA while I was at school!!!! :-) Seriously, an excellent editor. The DYK work is exceptional. I think he'll be one of the best admins ever (no offense, Husond) :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, in agreement with the statements by the co-nominator, Wizardman (talk · contribs), above. Shinealight2007 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  25. Support Good editor. Politics rule 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Candidate wouldn't let me nominate them :'( Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Oh, yes. I have been waiting to support in this RfA for quite some time now. Captain panda 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strongest possible support (How often do I get to write that?) I was one of the folks who opposed Anonymous Dissident's first RFA because of mistaken speedy deletion tagging. It is plainly obvious that he has learned from his mistakes, and this is no longer a problem. In all respects, he is a model Wikipedian, and totally ready for the responsibilities of active adminship. Shalom Hello 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. definatly deserves the mop!--Hu12 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  30. Strong Support should have been an admin before! -Lemonflash(do something) 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Very nice answers and seems like a reliable person. However, I was just a tiny bit concerned on how in the beginning he neglected to write edit summaries but it seemed that he changed and have been actively describing his edits. -ScotchMB 00:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Exetremely super strong support - Seen him on Afds for a while, this user will definatly be a great admin. Good Luck (wait....I shouldn't wish...I should expect). --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support mopifying this experienced, versatile, trustworthy and dedicated user. Excellent job. Húsönd 01:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Has clue. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Darn. Should have nominated them earlier like I planned to do. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I have only seen good things from this editor and think he'll make a first rate admin. Contrib history shows he knows what he's doing - time to give him the mop and bucket. WjBscribe 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I've seen AD around AfD for a while and he's usually right on the money. I think AD will make a fine admin. —Travistalk 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. SupportGreat track ,experienced and inpartial.Harlowraman 02:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support Brilliant editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support It is time to give this user the added tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support – I'm satisfied with the current sysop potential of this user and with his maturity level. — madman bum and angel 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support AD is a fine contributor and great admin material. κaτaʟavenoTC 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Excellent editor with a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. --Hdt83 Chat 02:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Only annoyed that I didn't see this until now. --John 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 60 DYKs and 4 GAs Support Please keep up the good work! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good writer and a nice person; why the heck not.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support great noms, article writing, seen AD around. Knows policy AND how to interact collaboratively, what a combo! :) Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support as long as you promise not to let adminship distract you too much from the excellent article writing you do! --JayHenry 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - His work on WP:DYK and helping us document which users are active there is quite helpful.Bakaman 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. The nom has it right. --Bduke 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - give the chap a mop! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - contribution history is excellent in both articles and technical work, and good reasons presented for wanting to be an admin. I agree with JayHenry though - don't let adminiship divert you from the article writing. Euryalus 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oh yes, definitely. –sebi 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Would have nominated him myself except I'm not good at writing nominations. --Richard 05:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not phased. Your advice was helpful, and I am grateful for that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. as co-nom. (Yes I know I am late, but I mixed up my times) --DarkFalls talk 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries DF - you still did, and I am very thankful. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support I have nothing but good things to say about AD, and I would feel very comfortable with him having a mop --lucid 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Strong all round candidate, the diff highlighted below and commented on by others does not concern me. I see an excellent, civil, friendly and helpful, user who I trust totally to use the buttons when required. Pedro |  Chat  07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support For sure. Very competent all round. Recurring dreams 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support This young editor is very smart and gives good advice and a trusted Wikipedian. He would make an excellent admin. King Lopez Contribs 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - seen this user's contribs at AIV, they have my support. - Philippe | Talk 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate, you already supported :) - see #9. WjBscribe 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - You didn't let me nom you. — Giggy 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey hey! Its a two way thing! You didn't let me nom you at your last RFA! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't have wanted to, I imagine Husond and Acalamari would like to drown me in a shallow pond (it's more painful that way). Besides, you never indicated that....and I did (right?). — Giggy 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well - you have got me there. I would have nommed, but all the same. :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I initially had concerns when I saw this RfA about whether AD had enough experience in mainspace. I apologise for being so totally wrong, per the numbers in Q2. Daniel 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support AD is a civil and level headed user would would make a great admin and use the tools wisely. --Chris  G  08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Dfrg.msc 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Candidate is an industrious encyclopedia builder. Should be an excellent admin. Majoreditor 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Super-Stong support I was sure this user was an admin already--Pheonix15 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I've seen this user around the project, and he's always seemed courteous and helpful to all. I have no problem with this guy getting a mop. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I offered to nom him too support - his conduct on the project is exemplary, he has good dispue resolution skills, communicates well and writes brilliantly. Whats not to like? ViridaeTalk 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Seems an excellent choice. - Modernist 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Naturally. —AldeBaer 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support - all the best. Khukri 14:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Really? An RFA for an editor who I thought had already got adminship? Seriously, I thought you were an admin. :-) Stwalkerster talk 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Candidate has made a tangible improvement since their last RFA, and I have no qualms about seeing them given the tools. VanTucky (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support I've seen his editing in various places, and he certainly is admin material. Plus, I totally figured out how to make signatures by (secretly) stealing his code. :x He certainly is a fine candidate and deserves the position to the fullest! -- Tommy Boy ♪ ♪ 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. <edit conflict>support crossed paths frequently enough to recognise this editor, nothing of concern. Gnangarra 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support seen this editor around and like what I've seen. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Huge Support He defiantly deserves this because he is a trustworthy user who is also a great contributer. I defiantly trust this user with the sysop responsibilities and powers. Yamaka122 ...:) 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Sadly I didn't get to nominate him - I would have liked to submit a co-nomination, but too late now. Anyway, an excellent candidate, and it's good to see that being young is not a barrier to becoming an administrator; I'm glad that we can judge candidates on their demonstrated maturity, not on arbitrary factors. Opposers raise no serious concerns; submitting one RfCN nom in error is hardly a good reason to oppose, IMO (especially since the username policy is somewhat vague, hence why we have RfCN in the first place). And, with all due respect to Matthew, his oppose is incredibly unhelpful (as per normal). WaltonOne 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong support as co-nom, excellent candidate. Melsaran (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for a great co-nom statement Melsaran. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support- Offered to co-nom but missed the gun. Deserves the mop by nowPerfect Proposal Speak out loud! 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong Support2 Conducts himself to the higher standards by which admins are held. Wide range of experience. Thoughtful contributor. Trustworthy. I would have co-nomed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Support3 Reports to AIV, my major point of contact with the candidate, always have the "t"'s crossed and the "i"'s dotted (warnings given, vandal active). Trustworthy, and then some. LessHeard vanU 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Deserves the mop -FlubecaTalk 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. I've been waiting for this... always an excellent voice in discussions in Wikipedia space. Pinball22 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Great Wikipedia maintenance assistance, and even better encyclopedia contributions. I look forward to seeing you do more at DYK. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - a fine candidate. - eo 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - absolutely no problems here, excellent editor, will use the mop well. ELIMINATORJR 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support This is about to set a record on the RfA that gained the most supports in a set amount of time, and definitely not without good reason. Anonymous Dissident has to be one of the wisest 12-year olds (I'm slightly older, so I need to tend to my horrible back. :-P) I've ever met. He could definitely use the tools. –Animum 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - I trust this user. AD responds well to criticisms, and I have no worries about tool abuse.--ragesoss 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Your principal opposes in your last nom were for a tendency to be a bit too quick to tag articles for speedy delete without checking your facts. Looks like you've been around a bit since then and gained some experience on how this issue is handled, and you've otherwise been a generally good editor. Look forward to having you as an admin. --Shirahadasha 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, changed from oppose, (see below). After a bit of thought, I think he'll be just as trustworthy an administrator as he has been an amazing editor.   justen   01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Absolutely. Excellent editor with plenty enough experience to make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. EXTREME MAXIMUM SUPPORT I thought you were an admin! Cheers,JetLover 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Seems like a good editor. Lot's of support from others and good edits. I see no reason to oppose, so I support. ♠TomasBat 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support You have an excellent record as an editor and I'm sure you will be trusted as an administrator. I find minimal or no flaws in your editing skills. :)--PrestonH 05:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - I've seen him around, and he knows his stuff.--Danaman5 06:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Strong Support - This user definitly knows what he is doing. andrewrox424 Bleep 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong support Great editor, great writer, helpfull person. Whats there not to like? —Zan orath 07:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. -- Y not? 08:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. 100th support, 100% with pleasure! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - good luck! The Rambling Man 08:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Strong support, definitely. Rather overdue, methinks ;P. Good luck! CattleGirl talk 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Keep, oh I mean Support, per above. We don't agree 100%, but so what? He's amazingly prolific. Bearian 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong support - I am surprised I hadn't gotten here sooner! And I don't think there is anything I need to say which hadn't been said already. -- Chris.B 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support, good editor. Everyking 13:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I've been highly impressed with AD. It is about time he got his mop. i said 13:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong Support, I've had the pleasure of knowing AD for a while, and I find him to be helpful, extremely knowledgeable, polite, willing to discuss issues without any sign of irritation, and an excellent Recent Changes patroller. His work at RFCN has been of significant assistance to me personally, when I first began participating, and I always felt I could go to him with any questions, confident he would offer his opinion, in a neutral way. I respect Justen, and understand his concerns, as we've had discussions on the RFCN Talk page. I do think that the issues raised had to do with interpretation, and the RFCN board is there for just that reason, to get input from the community, some of whom may see things differently than others may. I think in the case mentioned, RFCN served its purpose excellently. I have no concerns that AD isn't willing to listen, research, and ask questions and opinions prior to taking actions that may have repercussions, and I'm sure he'll tread lightly into areas that may be less familiar. In conclusion, I think it would be highly appropriate to grant this excellent contributor to Wikipedia the extra tools to allow him to assist in an even wider variety of ways. Ariel♥Gold 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support: ITYWAAA. dr.ef.tymac 13:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Excellent editor. I think that now is a very appropriate moment for AD to be promoted. James086Talk | Email 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. I find no reason to believe the editor would misuse the tools. I'll support. Navou banter 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Excellent editor; it's time for the mop. Xoloz 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support per noms and above. PeaceNT 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support An excellent editor, and I think that he'll do an excellent job with the tools as well. Boy1jhn 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. I was taken aback by his previous RFA, because I had always seen him as a cautious but productive editor, and was surprised at those diffs. He seems ever willing to take advice and criticism, and I think his new, deeper understanding of CSD is a good example of it. He'll be a good admin and probably even better as time goes on. Rigadoun (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Hiberniantears 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong Support - I started editing Wikipedia at the same time as this editor and, seen as I've interacted with him on a few occasions, I know how he works quite well. This user is an excellent, absolutely excellent editor, who has made phenomonal progress since he started and I would trust him in a very big way with the tools. Just look at Kate's tool and the areas he works in, and the answers to the questions. That says it all. Lradrama 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Okay. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Will mop wisely. Welcome to our nightmare. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support per Matthew. Will make a fine admin. --Kbdank71 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support nothing I've seen makes me worry about him abusing his position Ealdgyth | Talk 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Unneeded pile-on but oh-well Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Unnecessary support. I have run into this editor a few times, and have had only good interactions with him. I honestly thought he already was an admin. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Miranda 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support--MONGO 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. + Might as well add my well respected name to the who's who of this support Now removes tongue from cheek. Good editor, don't burn out. Keegantalk 04:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support I just feel the need to have my "tag" plastered over all RfA's --Ben hello! 05:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support I thought he was an admin already. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support this user has obviously benefited the project with stellar contributions (can't beat 4 good article contribs and 11 61<--that's stellar DYKs) and a nice bit of vandal cleanup. Would be great with the tools...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually 61 DYKs... :)--DarkFalls talk 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - I think that this user has surely earned the trust of the Wikipedia community by now. As such, let's trust him with the mop. Nihiltres(t.l) 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Great editor. LARA♥LOVE 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Better late than never support I've been very impressed with himBalloonman 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - seems to have the trust of the community. WilyD 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - Absolutely. Trusilver 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Strong member of Delta Ypsilon Kappa (DYK) team. :) - Darwinek 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Excellent contributions, very thougtful and insightful replies to the RfA questions as well as in day to day activities. Great vandal fighter. Can definitely be trusted with the mop. Dreadstar † 21:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - appears dedicated to project and willing to learn. Agathoclea 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. ∞ly Strong Support Best admin candidate for a long, long time. GDonato (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Hmmm. Let me think for a second. No, wait, just a support :). Exceptional answers and contribs, as I would expect from my experiences with him. ck lostsword•T•C 22:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Damn how'd I miss this one, but oh well one more can't harm. Khukri 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh... you didn't. Check No.70 :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Excellent candidate/contributor with impressive answers to the above questions ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support I am convinced that Anonymous Dissident will make a fine administrator, and will address the concerns listed in the oppose and neutral sections. Acalamari 01:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support I am also convinced. I have seen him around, he's friendly, and makes valuable contributions which will only improve when he's an administrator. All the best. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support A very competent and dedicated editor who seems committed to Wikipeida. TimidGuy 11:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support also favorably impressed. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support well, very surprised this person wasn't an admin before, and unanimous pass, I think;K14 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support, phew, so glad I made it in time - I wouldn't have forgiven myself if I didn't support this "awesome" candidate! ;) Phaedriel - 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Answer to Q7 adequately addresses my only concern. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support, I expect that Anonymous Dissident will put his experience to good use as an admin. GracenotesT § 06:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. zOMG!! Pile-on Support - super editor, excellent knowledge of policy. Tons of experience - Alison ☺ 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Good answer to Q7. When you are in doubt or if you think you are in the grey area, it is always a good idea to consult others. Appears to be a sensible person overall. - TwoOars 08:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Good answers from an experienced wikipedia editory. Will make a great admin. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - good Wikipedian from what I've seen of him. Will (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support I was half tempted to sign as "Anonymous Agreement", but I'll hold off on that. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. I've bumped into this candidate numerous times at XfD, AIV, and elsewhere, where they have consistently applied sound policy interpretation. Civil, mature, willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. And I'm downright jealous of their mainspace contribs. -- Satori Son 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support I do believe this user is now ready for adminship, and even last time I felt bad about opposing such a fabulous editor. Best of luck, - Arubiez (Zeibura's sockpuppet) (Talk) 15:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC) (commenting as User:Zeibura, won't be able to log into my account for a few weeks)[reply]
  156. Support. I've seen this editor's work and have no concerns about him. EdJohnston 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Very good editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support -Per above, yea, yea, yea. This doesn't even matter anyway because the closing crat will not be bothering the read this (unless the closing crat is Deskana :] ). Therefore, this is purely a vote. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not. --Deskana (talky) 22:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support - definitely a user worthy of the status of a admin. ChrisDHDR 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. There is ample evidence here (and from my personal experience) to show that you will be active, stay cool, value discussion, respect consensus, and learn from your mistakes. I was hoping for a more philosophical response to my question, mostly because I wanted you to help me dispel my own age-related qualms. Anyway, don't prove me wrong; I don't often add my two cents to runaway discussions. Have fun with your bits. Dekimasuよ! 10:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support - yes!! I thought you already were one. --Isis4563 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support I think it's all been said already.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support - Give him the mop! gidonb 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support why not! Oysterguitarist 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, not at the moment. Matthew 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to sound rude, but this is an exceedingly unhelpful response. Is there a particular pattern to AD's editing that you find unnerving? Do you think he doesn't have enough experience in a particular field? He can't improve as an editor if you don't explain what needs improvement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found problems, but I don't believe the candidate wishes them to be told (as apparently RfA is a "vote"). Matthew 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that AD would want to hear your reasons for oppose; I know that if it were my RfA, I would want to hear your reasoning. Neranei (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree, I'm not really sure that your diff can be applied here, as that case where AD did it, there were already several oppose votes with a variety of explanations for the reasons for oppose, and AD was simply adding that he did not at that time, feel he could support (this is similar to someone posting an opinion, using "per above/per nom" as the reason). In this case, I would think that some sort of explanation could be helpful, aside from that diff you showed. Of course, it is totally up to you, but it would certainly be of assistance to those who are voting, and to those reviewing this RfA. Ariel♥Gold 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to be the one who has to tell you this, Pinky: RfA isn't a vote. Matthew 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Unless you have another, more valid reason, you probably shouldn't oppose because of a single oppose !vote. J-stan TalkContribs 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    /me passes you a dummy. Matthew 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... what? J-stan TalkContribs 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh, Matthew that really was way out of line. Just stop it, please... Majorly (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing that Matthew has been here long enough that he knows what he is doing and that it is not necessary for a bunch of people to come here to dispute his opposition. I doubt that the success or failure of this RFA will hinge in one comment. --After Midnight 0001 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the fact that he has been here for a while apparently doesn't mean that his comments are constructive or well thought out, as evident from his "contributions" to various RfA debates. In this case, the oppose was entirely WP:POINTy, unconstructive, and irritating, and there is nothing wrong with disputing his opposition. RfA is supposed to be a discussion, after all. Melsaran (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, what a candidate wants to come out is entirely irrelevant; diffs can illustrate problematic behavior that may have gone unseen by people digging through an editor's contribs, and could be used to more accurately gauge an editor's potential as an administrator. Besides, if every candidate got what they wanted, then every RfA would pass. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can make a comment on the diff - I opposed the RFA basically per the others. I am sorry I did not make this more clear, but I felt that what I said would be enough to in a way allude to the reasonings of the others. I said what I said because of the user's experience, so my comment of 'not at the moment' could be expanded to 'not at the moment, but when you have more experience'. I hope this makes my comments more clear. Basically, Ariel hit the nail on the head. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now ellaborated on the oppose, explaining myself in more depth. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for future reference AD, I think it's best that if an RfA is in a snowball position - unless you have some proper advice for the candidate it's best to just stay out of it completely - I've got to say that the oppose that Matthew highlighted did smack of newbie biting. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will remember that then. Thanks for the advice. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I discovered something quite shocking. This user used the exclamation word, ergo I am now strongly opposed to this person becoming an admin. Matthew 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew, your comments have now become trollish and disruptive. Stop it immediately and please re-evaluate the nature of your participation in RfA. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you disagree with the terminology (which has no real redeeming value whatsoever, except to identify an idea, such as an !vote [yes, I said the exclamation point word]), take it to WT:RFA where people will regard it as less of a WP:POINT violation. Oh, and another thing, you're treading on thin ice for the reasons Newyorkbrad has stated, plus for the fact that the community's patience is almost exhausted with your behavior. –Animum 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL at everyone not getting the point you are making. 86.137.123.74 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I have a great amount of respect for Anonymous Dissident, as an editor, for his commitment to the project. However, I have very specific concerns with his ability to familiarize himself with policy that he could be implementing, and accept when he potentially should take another look. He is a very active participant at WP:RFCN, as he indicates above, but in a recent request for comment, he seemingly asserted that the applicable policy, WP:U, doesn't prohibit promotional usernames (which, it does). After apparently reading the policy, he played Devil's Advocate for a bit, before sort of coming around. Unfortunately, that was just a week ago. A day or so later, he submitted a request for comment that was promptly closed at the username clearly didn't violate any of the criteria of WP:U. AD can be a kind, helpful force at WP:RFCN, but I am concerned that his growing knowledge of Wikipedia policy, particularly at WP:RFCN, just isn't enough yet to ensure that he would utilize the tools competently.   justen   07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking my oppose. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this (more than I should have, probably), and I really think my concerns were too severe. I hope, and think that he'll take action at WP:UAA cautiously, and I think he'll continue to be just as trustworthy an administrator as he has been an editor. So, support, which will be numbered above.   justen   01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that particular RFCN report (made, indeed, by you, Justen) resulted in an allowance, after lengthy discussion. The second, in relation to "Sexc tomboi chik": the matter of user names in reference to the word "Sexy" is being discussed at WT:RFCN now. Still, your oppose is valid, and I will say no more. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Ok, I'm confused by this. Isn't taking it to RFC/N a good thing, since he's asking other people's opinion on it? I might agree if it had been UAA, but I think one of us is missing the point of RFCN --lucid 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - I brought it to RFCN, not UAA, for community discussion, as I would do as an editor, admin or crat. I was unsure of the username's properness for Wikipedia, and thats why it was at RFCN, rather than UAA. It just so happened that that particular report to RFCN by me was found to be allowable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lucid, taking it to RFCN is appropriate when there may be a violation of WP:U. But, again, thinking that "sexy" or "sexc" is somehow profane or obscene, I'm afraid, hearkens back to the same lack of understanding of policies he would be enforcing, the lack of understanding that led to my oppose. Anonymous Dissident, can you direct me to the discussion on disallowing "sexy" that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't see it on WT:RFCN...   justen   08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not seeing your point. He said seems a bit of a breech to me -- obviously if he was confident enough that it was a violation of policy he would've taken it to WP:UAA. He was not sure if sexy/sexc was obscene by Wikipedia's standards, it's not a lack of understanding of policy, it's a lack of knowing if a word meets the obscenity clause or not, and he did the right thing to ask about it. I don't know about where he lives, but I know enough people that could find that name offensive or obscene are out there that I can understand his concern. I recommend you take a step back and consider why he took that name to RFCN, not just the fact that he did --lucid 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, AD, as you know, the username was not blocked as it was no longer active, not because it was in compliance with WP:U. In fact, as you came to acknowledge yourself, it did violate the promotional rule of the username policy, and otherwise would have been blocked.   justen   08:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to agree with you in the end, and I did not intend to play a "Devil's advocate", but rather have a polite communal discussion about the name. After all - I would have considered it an improper report had it gone to UAA, and you were right to take it RFCN, where I happened to firstly say one thing, and eventually see your way. It is a discussion-based system at WP:RFCN, for "borderline" usernames, and I happened to, at first, be on the other side of the border. I probably would have taken the same action as you had I been aware of the username in relation to contribution history. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey there Justin, I've got to speak up about AD's participation at RFCN - in my opinion he is one of the most sensible users who comment there. The diff's you highlight don't really give any serious concerns - just a different interpretation of a very ambiguous username policy. If an editor has a concern about a name, a good place to take it is to RFCN to see how the comunity feels about it, I could understand that poor judgement would have been shown if this had gone to UAA - but by taking it to RFCN, it shows AD wasn't completely sure himself, so wanted greater input - in my opinion that shows he wouldn't be trigger happy with the block button. Just my 2 cents.... Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, "sexy" and "sexc" can be considered (possibly) obscene. Thinking this is in no way a lack of understanding of policy. --Coppertwig 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. I personally believe that is a matter of political orientation, rather than an incorrect interpretation of policy, but J is, of course, welcome to oppose on that ground. I don't think this hassling of detractors is necessary when the tally is 89/2/1 is all that necessary, actually... –Animum 01:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anonymously 128.100.88.22 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, anons can't comment in the support/oppose/neutral sections. Maxim(talk) 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I'm worried about the editor's understanding of copyright, per DYK discussion on Oswald Tesimond [11]. In my opinion, merely paraphrasing occasional words while retaining the sentence structure of the original is insufficient. I don't have time to go through the editor's contributions in detail to see whether this article is an isolated case or a more general flaw, hence Neutral. Espresso Addict 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Espresso Addict, thanks for the comment. After you made a comment there, I made some changes and tried to make it more different from the said site. Do you still feel that there is an issue there? If there is, the RFA disregarded, I'd be happy ot take a look. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm not at all certain you've learned enough since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish speedway 1950s for me to be sure you should be deleting pages. Though if you at least remember to A) check the history of the page and B) check the content of the page elsewhere, it might not be a problem. But I do hope you'll at least take that as a lesson, and make a greater use of cleanup tags instead of deletion tags. FrozenPurpleCube 04:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That experience resulted in my learning of a few things, and I feel that I will not make the same mistake again. Your advice was invaluable, and I am sorry I did not fully realise it at the time. Thanks -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say, checking the history and external importance of the content is a good thing to do, and I now, after that particular experience, try to make a point of doing this, among other things, before nominating an article for deletion or particpating in an AFD. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.