Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pilotguy

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

[edit] Pilotguy

Final (120/1/3) ended 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pilotguy (talk • contribs) – Pilotguy is cleared for adminship, he's been active in RC patrol, AfD, Help Desk, and guess what, even the odd very nice article. He clearly passes *FA with * FA's, I see no reason why we should not clear him for adminship Tawker 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to co-nominate this user, as he's very dedicated and greatly contributed to Wikipedia. I've seen him helping to fight vandalism numerous times and the tools would certainly be of benefit to his work. :) G.He 23:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank you for the nomination. --Pilot|guy 21:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per my nom statement above -- Tawker 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, this should've happened a looooooonnnnng time ago. Tijuana Brass^E@ 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Great user, seen around alot, very active in Wikipedia. Will make a great admin. --Shizane 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. — FireFox 21:34, 12 June '06
5. Strong Support passes *FA, great contributor.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Cleared for landing on Rwy 17R, I mean support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - excellent user, won't abuse the tools. Please do consider reducing your sig though. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support a very competent, extremely friendly user. —Mets501 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
9. support pilotguy has always striked me as being someone who works well with wikipedia stress and id have to search his contribs really rally hard to find anything that bugged me Benon 22:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per nom Anger22 22:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, based on involvement and comments above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - Nice contributions and a good vandal fighter. This won't make change my vote, but I'd like to see a more compact signature. Afonso Silva 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Stong support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Merovingian {T C @} 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Great contributor. Good experience in vandalism. Regular and helpful changes to the defcon too. DarthVader 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Met him on IRC. Seems sane, reasonable and helpful. I think he'd be a suitable admin. -Dawson 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support will use the tools well. --Alf ^melmac 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Another good vandal fighter and per Tawker.Voice-of-All 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support ForestH2
20. Strong support. --Rory096 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Support. Great user and very helpful in the field of countering vandalism! G.He 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - CrazyRussian's diffs lead me to support, actually. - Richardcavell 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong support; extremely clear-headed. ~ PseudoSudo 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, without second thoughts. My own continued experience with Pilot (which comes from no less than 5 months ago) and a thorough check of his many contributions only lead me to believe that he's thoughtful, meticulous, and most important, kind in his dealings with other users. CrazyRussian, I have utmost respect for your opinion, as I have proved by supporting your own candidacy; but I believe you're being a bit too harsh judging Pilotguy here. From all the things you pointed out, I only agree that his sig is somewhat long and would be better off if simplified a little. But every other aspect, I find debatable for the same reasons alleged by Joturner, Andeh & Rory. I especially disagree with considering a notice at a user's own userpage regarding a current RfA as something negative; many, many respectable admins have done this in time, and I can't think that having posted said notice in turn has had any impact in their administrative performance. Please, don't switch sides merely over what I said; I simply wanted to share my opinion on your position with you. Огромное спасибо! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - passes my DSoDD. Most notably: (h) positive comments from others; (g) signature is/was no big deal; (c) I have seen nothing but positive interactions. joturner 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Excellent candidate. --TantalumTelluride 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support even though he has been blocked twice, wrongly. :-D Long time user, reduced sig as requested.--Andeh 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
28. I know Pilotguy from RC/CVN work and he's always friendly. I think I'll pick Support RfA cliche #2. (2x Edit Conflict!) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Great counter-vandalism work; no objections (and gosh, now I'm worried that perhaps my sig is too big?) OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

    You only get moaned at about your sig whilst RFAing. I've seen a few admins that have way longer sigs than Pilotguy.--Andeh 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

30. Support I have come across him in vandalization reversions and at other times, and he seems to be a fine candidate for the mop-and-flamethrower. Good Luck! -- Avi 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, will be a fine addition to the administrator community. -- Natalya 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, meet my criteria abakharev 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support no brainer support jbolden1517^Talk 03:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Robert 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support, likes planes, er, is active in fighting vandalism and seems helpful and level-headed.--Tachikoma 03:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support An excellent vandal fighter. No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Cleared for Adminship, maintain 2000 until established on the localiser. Werdna (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support --Terence Ong 04:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, excellent candidate, adminship is due. DVD+ R/W 04:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Excellent editor. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support hell yeah! Computerjoe's talk 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Great user, will make a great admin. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Good all-round contributer. Will be an asset with the tools. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 09:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Control tower to Pilotguy, you're cleared for adminship. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 10:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleared for admin.. Loads of good edits, loads of adminish stuff already. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Strong Support Great, Friendly user. Anonymous_anonymous 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

    • I've changed the markup used for your vote - you used a * instead of a #. Hope you don't mind. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

48. Support, per nom. Ideal admin material. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Helpful user, very active in fighting vandalism. --Scot^t 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
50. I'd like to file an amended flight plan and support this user. He's friendly and level-headed and helps out a lot, and I see that continuing into adminship. --Elkman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support – Gurch 13:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Contributions makea compelling case. Just zis Guy you know? 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Been around a while, does good stuff, does it reliably and well and does a mixture of it. Well qualified. -Splash - tk 15:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support, is good stuff. Proto||type 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support! Friendly, and would make a good admin. - Tangotango 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Thunderbrand 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
58. SUpport. Bucketsofg✐ 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Aviation metaphorless support per nom, Tangot, and Splash, to name three. Joe 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Cliche Support. Would have supported anyway. :) Roy A.A. 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support on WHEEELS!!! Great user. Is to the point and doesn't take crap from anyone. Give him the mop and let him clean the place up. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Cliché Support. I seriously would have bet money that he was an admin. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Joe I 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support, great contributor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Surely will use the admin extra buttons judiciously. Great contributor and vandal fighter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. I have no reason otherwise, this is a great editor. LINUXERIST@ 00:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
68. RfA cliché #1 support. -- getcrunkjuice 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Pepsidrinka supports. 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support seems to be suitable admin material - blue520 05:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support per above. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support. αγδεε (ε τ c) 07:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Strong Support. He deserves the mop. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support... although you need more Help talk: namespace edits! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. *drew 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support one of the good guys who will make a great admin. Gwernol 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
77. 'MAJOR support Good, reliant editor. (also a good source for userboxes...) p00rleno 14:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support meets my adminship criteria. -- Where is Where? 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Downwind support Misza13 ^{T C} 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 9000 valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.Jordy 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support Helpful person. All I have to say. Jean-Paul 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Parlez-vous Français?
82. Support Kind, civil user who can easily be trusted with the tools. --Xyrael ^T 20:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Cleared for adminship. No doubt in his abilities or suitability for being an administrator. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Full-on support. I'm glad I came back in time to vote support on your RfA, Pilotguy, you're one of the awesomest guys on Wikipedia. Mo0[talk] 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Support. No problems here. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
86. Support Exceeds my requirements. — Nathan ^(talk) 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
87. Cleared for adminship Pilotguy has been a solid contributor to the project for six months. Based on my experiences working with him, in addition to his good record, I have nothing less than full support for him in this RfA. --Jay(Reply) 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
88. Support. Exploding Boy 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
89. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
90. Support, clear for takeoff. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
91. Very strong support! A model "citizen" of Wikipedia. Kukini 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
92. Support absolutely - Use the tools well and do good things--Looper5920 10:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
93. Support. Seems friendly, and tools will help with vandal fighting. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
94. Support for tireless battling against the vandal hordes. Especially impressive in a spate of userpage vandalism a few days ago. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
95. Support of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
96. Support. Nevermind2 09:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
97. Support Per Tawker and the may I add my $0.02 and say he's an exceptional vandal fighter - Glen Stollery 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
98. Support No problems with me. GangstaEB EA 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
99. Support. Not an admin already? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
100. I stayed neutral for awhile because of signature concerns but those seem to be worked out now, so here comes support #100!! --Cyde↔Weys 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
101. Support. A bit low in the talk namespace, but what the heck. Kalani ^[talk] 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
102. Support - looks good, and I'm pleased that he doesn't pussyfoot around with vandals. Metamagician3000 10:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
103. Support --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
104. Support For the reasons stated above. Mr. Turcotte^talk 16:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
105. GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

     Strong Support-- The nicest, most rule enforcing person ever go Pilotguy! Starburst101

     That is the vote of a sock of a banned user. I striked it out. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

106. Late-and-not-needed Support -- 9cds^(talk) 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
107. Support, not that it's really needed. Jude (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
108. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
109. Support Looks like fine admin material to me! Imhungry 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
110. Support. I make exceptions for people with relatively low WP-space edits who have outstanding article contributions, which Pilotguy clearly does. The question one answer addresses that concern anyway, because the user says they will start in familiar areas. No other possible concerns. A great vandal fighter. Grandmasterka 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
111. Support. Excellent user, would make a great administrator. — TheKMan^talk 05:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
112. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-19 07:04Z
113. Support - solid user, looks quite patient when dealing with recurring problem users... if he can be patient with sockmasters, he can probably handle other issues well, I'd say. Tony Fox (speak) 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
114. Support - I thought i already voted. :'( Iolakana|^(talk) 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
115. Piling it on support. Excellent user, will be a great admin. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
116. Support Without question or hesitation... --Mhking 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
117. Late Support I've known Pilotguy for awhile now, his behaviour and attitude are well-suited to being an admin.--Shanel ^§ 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
118. Support seems to be a nice guy --Dar777 20:05, 19 June 2006

     Comment:User's first and only edit. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

119. Support will be a great Admin -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
120. Support I thought I already supported you once. *Please remove this support if I voted twice* — The King of Kings 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. robchurch | talk 11:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any conflicts with you, so my presumption is that it probably had something to do with the template I had in my sandbox. Fair enough. --Pilot|guy 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

# Oppose {{Special:Random/Oppose}} --pgk^(talk) 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Has a DC-10 sized signature in an era that tolerates nothing larger than a CRJ. Again, this has nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications or conduct, but it'll cause objections at some point. --Elkman (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 21:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to support, see above.

I went ahead and shortened it to my prior version, however I can shrink it further if requested. --Pilot|guy 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:SIG, make the adjustments and I'll throw in a support vote.:-) Andeh 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Take out the link to Esperanza and it would be over a line shorter. --Rory096 23:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this neutral still valid seeing as Pilotguy has made the adjustments to his signature?--Andeh 06:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was never valid in the first place. I'm off to review his contributions now. --Elkman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 12:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral by popular demand. Thanks to all for the effort expended in reasoning with me. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose for a few reasons: signature; this super heavyhanded level 4 warning for this, Anon's 2nd contribution in a month; this promotional notice, kinda low project-space edits (310ish) of which way too few are deletion discussions. (Lots of RC patrolling and edits to AIAV, which is good, but that's only half the equation.) None of these things are killer, but they add up. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   Aren't promotional notices acceptable on one own's userpage, especially if they're not flashy? joturner 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   I don't see how notices on userpages advertising the users RFA is unacceptable. Leaving messages on other users talk pages is unacceptable.--Andeh 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   Spamming others would be an automatic oppose. This notice I consider a negative, but not one that requires an oppose vote, as I made clear. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   The others two edits you mentioned are only minor mistakes, it seems a little harsh to oppose imo. Roger, it is a valid mistake made by Pilotguy because IPs change per user, so it could've been a different user and should be treated as a new user in such a space of a months time..--Andeh 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   "heavyhanded"?? It was a clear case of repeat vandalism. He didn't do anything wrong IMO. It doesn't matter how many times a vandal has posted, vandalism is vandalism. I would have done the same thing, except with rollback, which hopefully Pilotguy will soon have. --rogerd 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, very. Let me reiterate, however - each of the four things I mentioned would not in and of itself cause an oppose vote. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   With all due respect, I think you need to put things back into the bigger picture. The edit *was* vandalism and yes, a test4 may have been a little extreme but 1 incident in hundreds is hardly an oppose reason. Project namespace is no indicator of adminness, anyone could rack em up rapidly, and they're not terribly useful as an indicator. Promo notices on user pages are not banned per any guideline per say, its not spamming, just an advisory that he might be busy due to RfA. Again, I suggest you re-look your reasons here -- Tawker 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   That test4 is valid, and I would probably have done the same thing. First, the IP was introducing libelous information into the article, which is never good. Second, the warning just above that was a test3, so Pilotguy didn't even do anything like incrementing by 2, he just gave him the next warning up! As for the notice on his userpage, many people do that, and it's a good thing because we can then have people who interact with the user comment here. --Rory096 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, the warning just above was even more heavy-handed - starting off with a test3. No excuse, though. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   It wasn't too bad. If the user has vandalized before, I almost always don't start with just a test, and since this was actually libeling the subject of the article (while not making itself obvious, like if it was a blanking), it's worse than usual, and so a test3 isn't totally uncalled for. Either way, though, Pilotguy didn't do anything wrong. --Rory096 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

   Upon further inspection the mistake was actually made by User:Sango123 using a test2 first even though the only warning given in the past was an entire month ago so it could be a totally new person. I really think you should move your vote to neutral Crzrussian.--Andeh 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Signature has been shortened to one line. Hopefully this is acceptable. --Pilot|guy 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Affirmative. Support +1. Andeh 01:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Absolutely not, Pilotguy. It should be less than three characters, including the timestamp. joturner 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   I agree with you on that one Joturn! :-D--Andeh 04:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

   Heh, I'll see what I can do :) --Pilot|guy 01:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Outstanding work, but you haven't been here a year yet. It would be churlish to oppose solely on those grounds, but I won't support condemning another good editor to the admin corps. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Mackensen. SushiGeek 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Pilotguy's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 16:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC) ^(Update*) using Interiot's tool*:

Username        Pilotguy
Total edits     9222
Distinct pages edited   5634
Average edits/page      1.637
First edit      23:39, December 27, 2005
        
(main)  3929
Talk    168
User    886
User talk       3834
Image   12
MediaWiki talk  1
Template        60
Template talk   3
Category        4
Wikipedia       317
Wikipedia talk  7
Portal  1

• See Pilotguy's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Pilotguy (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 102 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 12, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 1, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 53.69% Minor edits: 86.29%
Average edits per day: 34.66 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 261 edits) : Major article edits: 99.18% Minor article edits: 96.4%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.38% (19)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 2.3% (115)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 76.17%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3117 | Average edits per page: 1.6 | Edits on top: 17.94%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 44.22% (2211 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 7.9% (395 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 47.88% (2394 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 23.3% (1165 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 42.44% (2122) | Article talk: 1.4% (70)
User: 10.36% (518) | User talk: 40.54% (2027)
Wikipedia: 4.08% (204) | Wikipedia talk: 0.14% (7)
Image: 0.1% (5)
Template: 0.86% (43)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.06% (3)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: There are many things I would be intrested in helping out with. I would, however, probably start out with the areas that I have the experience most in, including, but not limited to, reverting vandalism, blocking/unblocking users, page protections/deletions/moves, and also possibly closing a few AFDs, CFDs, etc., just to name a few. Eventually, I would like to spread out to help clear/close copyvios, and related work.

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

A: I would probably be proud of the articles I have listed on my user page, but also the ones I have committed to fixing/cleaning up, which are not listed there. Wikipedia is a phenominal encyclopedia and I always take pride in improving or expanding it for the benefit of others.

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: I have had a few minor instances, but, in my opinion, they occured early on when I was still "learning." I got hit with two blocks because the blocking administrators mistaked my revert edits as vandalism, so I got a little agitated there, but I began to realise that we are all human, and all make mistakes. I have gone out of my way to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and so far I have done so to the best of my ability, and, although it will be a little challenging, I will do my best to continue to do so.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This one's tough, and, of course, it all depends on the situation. Certainly, I feel best judgement should always be used, however, my observations in the past have told me that this doesn't work out too well for our community. So, I feel that should such an action need to occur, it will need to have community consensus and input, and therefore the admin will have outside advice, as well as support, for the best action to take.

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.