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

Final (80/1/1) Ended Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:28:06 UTC

ReyBrujo (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination.

I joined Wikipedia in May 2005, and actively edited since September 2005 (including a wikibreak in which I analyzed my time here). As a WikiGnome, I have accumulated a good edit history across several namespaces, especially in the main, template, user, image and Wikipedia ones.

During this time, I have had good and bad experiences. However, I have always tried my best to act in good faith, to comprehend and respect others, to teach new users as much as I can, and to acknowledge my faults in order to correct them. Nobody is perfect, though, and I have made mistakes. But, hopefully, I have helped this project more than what I may have damaged it.

Although our goal is to create a free encyclopedia, everyday a few try to abuse this fact by creating advertisements, attack pages and copyright violations. I have been working for some months at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, doing my best to lessen the work administrators have when dealing with recently created copyvios. I also detect non notable topics while patrolling for spam links, and as of late I noticed that administrators are having problems dealing with the backlogs, especially those related to recently created articles set for deletion. This is why I present myself as candidate, willing to answer any question about my behavior or ideals. Adminship is not a big deal, as I have repeated to others many times, and as such I would really appreciate any opinion about this nomination. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Fulfilling this formal requirement, I accept. -- ReyBrujo 15:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional statement

I have been nominated once before, by Jedi6. I rejected such nomination, as I did not feel I needed the tools. For a longer explanation, see here. -- ReyBrujo 05:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 do 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: As I said, I believe I have accumulated a good experience at judging copyright violations, thus I would be glad to help when dealing with the speedy deletions regarding copyright violations found at Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion in general, with the different articles listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Although I do not really need a rollback feature for reverting casual vandalism as the one I usually find in articles I have watchlisted, with the creation of #wikipedia-spam, we have detected many users who add links to a big amount of articles, and such feature would help me revert their additions faster. I have made a similar amount of reports to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and feel confident enough to determine when a page needs any kind of protection or when a user should be blocked. As I stated in question 3, I had became very patient, and would take an extra minute to get sure that reported users have had their opportunities to redeem themselves. I admit I have been controversial in the past, but since then I have learned (and been taught) quite a lot about image sourcing and fair use, and would be willing to help at Category:Images with unknown source (which currently has a 12 day backlog) and Category:Images and media for deletion.

I had contributed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in the past, but haven't as of late since my focus has been catching copyright violations as soon as they happen. It is my hope that, whenever the backlogs are as cleaned as they can, to help there as well, as it is not uncommon to get reports at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard requesting discussion closures that had been overdue.

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

A: As a pure WikiGnome, most of my edits are maintenance ones. Thus, when choosing articles to which I had contributed, it is easy to remember those in which I had spent a good amount of time. In the article namespace, I am pretty proud of Goldmoon, Riverwind and Sturm Brightblade. These three characters from the Dragonlance series of books were almost completely reshaped, from small articles that could be considered long stubs to full articles, and with the help from others, Goldmoon and Riverwind achieved good article status.

In the template namespace, I created the {{DL character}} template, the infobox used for Dragonlance characters, picking from different templates and shaping it to our needs. With the information I learned there, I am proud of having participated in the "new" {{Infobox Album}} template, where the WikiProject Albums worked very hard to improve. Almost the full development of the template took place in my sandbox, with some members of the wikiproject contributing actively to it. The new infobox allowed us to detect about 4,000 articles where the infobox was being used inappropriately, which after a month or so were fixed.

In the Wikipedia namespace, I am pretty happy with the work I am doing at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, where User:Wherebot reports articles created that may be considered copyright violations. At first, reports were relatively spaced between each other, and participation would just report the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (due lack of G12 speedy criteria). With the criteria, my role changed to tag the articles as candidates for speedy deletion, and removing them from the Suspected copyright violations page. However, I noticed that articles would not be deleted as fast as expected due the backlog, and since some time I leave the report in the page with a comment about the action I had taken, including applying the correct tags in the user's talk pages. I am also pretty happy with my work at Wikipedia:Editor review. I think I had given good feedback to those requesting it, and I believe the fact that I can say "I see you are a wikignome as me" or something similar makes new users feel comfortable with the term. Considering that I had written over 60 reviews, with each one taking me between 30 and 60 minutes, I have invested a good amount of time there. And since users there do appreciate the effort I put in reviewing them, I consider it a good job. And with my contributions to Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions, a category created to point those categories that should not be tagged with the NOGALLERY keyword, which allows us to quickly explain to users why categories with fair use images are tagged with such keyword.

Finally, even though it is hard to maintain, becoming outdated very often, I am pretty pleased with an awfully written javascript routine User:ReyBrujo/Tools/phs.js. It is my belief that summaries are being misused, as they are a very useful way for new users to learn about our guidelines and policies, and with this small script I try to teach as much as fix an article.

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: Yes, I had been involved in several conflicts. Some time after beginning my contributions here, I reacted in a uncivil way during a revert war [1] [2] [3] against User:A Link to the Past. I must thank User:A Man In Black for helping me understand the guidelines, and A Link to the Past himself for pointing me to the three revert rule and for trying to explain the matter in my talk page.

Also, User:Brazil4Linux accused me of blanking his contributions, and I admit I was a bit harsh when replying to him. [4]

Also, during April-May 2006 I began reviewing images in articles I had in my watchlist, tagging the ones without explicit source as missing it. Some users complained about this, a controversial topic for sure. Out of around 300 images, around 50 no source statements were reverted, 100 or so were fixed (as in, adding the source) and 150 were deleted. I asked at the Wikipedia:Fair use page, and got here and here, where I was told the source should be specified when possible. Most of the images I tagged had no comments other than the name of the character the screenshot was referring to, while others (the controversial ones) were tagged as "screenshot from the series", with no information about who created the screenshot, the series episode number or name, or the site from where the image was taken. After realizing the "source" area was really gray, I decided to take the advice of those users who complained, and revert the images that I had tagged and were still to be considered for deletion. Some time later I queried people there whether some images like covers implicitly state a source, which brought the point about whether fair use can be applied for images identifying the subject only and not critical commentary.

And finally, my biggest conflict was with User:HappyVR in the PlayStation 3 article. The article was using a free image after a long discussion in the talk page between User:Doom127 and me, where in the end we agreed with suggestions from the Fair use people. During that time, the topic was brought several times (here User:Gatoatigrado points to most of those discussions). HappyVR first thought I was being sarcastic, however I must point that I was not being (although I can understand he was confused); I do usually think that the best way to explain a point is to use an extreme example, as I do with new users doing copyvios when claiming they are the owner of a site and give permission to Wikipedia to post the contents here—in these cases I ask them if I am able to take his site content, slightly reword it, and post it in my own site. HappyVR then found some of my comments insulting. The PlayStation 3 controller did not have rumble, and several outlets were informing it was because Sony lost a lawsuit against the company that developed it. When he refused to add that information in the article, I tried to explain him that information that is verifiable by reliable sources can be inserted in the article, that he was removing this information as speculation but not the speculation found in two other sections of the article, and that he should check some links to see "the other side of the coin, unless you will only trust Sony." My reply on his talk page ignited some comments that I found offensive. To prevent further problems, I stayed away from the article as much as possible. I was surprised when I found the user was banned, and while reviewing his contributions to try to understand what happened to him, I noticed he tried to create a Request for comments about my behaviour, which was removed after 48 hours of no activity.

I feel really comfortable with Wikipedia, and barely become stressed enough to feel like leaving. That only happened once at the beginning of the year, but luckily I have had no second thoughts since then. The advantage about being a WikiGnome is that there is always something to do, and the fact I am not focused on a single kind of articles allows me to switch to another area until the situation cools down. I have always tried to stay civil, and whenever someone thought I was not, I immediately apologized to prevent the situation from escalating, and then tried to explain myself as best as I could. I am very patient with new users, and usually take my time explaining why their article was deleted, or their external links removed, which has only helped me in becoming yet more patient.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: I support discussion and consensus. I support polls as a way to measure consensus, not as a tool to achieve it. Everyone must give something up in order for consensus to work. However, sometimes discussions may stall and do not achieve desired results. In these cases, there is an option to advance. As with any subjective rule, is should be taken with great care, because abusing it is a question of perspective.

Personally, although Wikipedia:Office Actions is a policy, I see it as a perfect example of IAR. The office is able to see things from a different point of view, considering many sides we editors may not know. And when it acts, it is because the conflict went out of hands of editors, maybe even before they knew about the problem. From time to time, an editor may view things different from others, considering points that had been foreign to previous discussions. Without IAR, the editor would be restricted by precedents and customs. With it, he is given an alternative. Abusing it, though, is a matter of perspective. As for when I would use it, first of all, only against an article, and only if I have not been involved in a recent conflict with it. A good example is when a template is full protected because of an edit war, and the current version (yes, m:The Wrong Version) is breaking more articles than a previous one. If I have not been involved in the edit war, I would revert or request someone to revert it to the less damaging version. Another would be when a redirect is protected, and the current version is pointing to the less convenient option according to our redirect guidelines. Again, were I neutral in this topic, I would revert or request someone to revert to the most convenient version. A final example would be health issues. When at WikiProject Album someone stated the orange used in the infobox album brought health issues, I would have changed the orange for another color as soon as reported (similar to what I did when someone stated he had trouble reading the small font) without consulting, and after solving the original issue, searched for consensus for a new color. Since that was not possible (the orange was specified in the article and not in the template itself), I went back to my "default" behavior of discussing and achieving consensus for the change.

I don't think there are many times when I would use the Snowball clause. However, I would apply it when a user is being bashed unnecessarily. As I explained here, "moral support" exist because we don't know when to stop opposing. The snowball clause is useful here to prevent a relatively new user from being discouraged from participating in Wikipedia. Process is important, but so are users, and we need to teach them when they take a bad decision.

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: The short answer is no, as stated by the policy. But I would like to give a longer answer, applying my own experience. As I explained in questions 1 and 3, I am a very patient man. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (I quote Wikipedia:Introduction as of right now: aksdjfklasdjksdjfksdja;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;). I think that is one, if not the, reason why we are here, now. And I do what I can in order to allow people to contribute. In example, I told (aeropagitica) that I prefer having a short stub than no article at all, because new users can't create articles, but they can expand stubs. I had already said that in a peer review. Before, I have preferred to unlink a red link, but as of late, I prefer to suggest people to create stubs. I am sure I had used test templates more than 500 times, but only have 20 edits in AIV. In my editor reviews, I suggest people to warn, to use the different test templates, to repeat them if a new test is not justified. I assume good faith, and would expect blocks to be a last resource, only after reasonable efforts are spent to convince him to change his behavior. Block him to prevent further stress to editors, readers and articles, but not for past mistakes.

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: As I stated in my nomination, some users, very few one, abuse our hospitality. They use Wikipedia as a personal mean instead of a community one. As with people posting copyright violations, I take my time to explain to them about us, why their contributions are wrong, and how to solve the issue. When in doubt, I tag the article with {{advert}}, and probably leave a note in the talk page about why the article is advertisment. When the article is blatant spam (includes prices and selling locations with business time, when the given contact information is a sales department, if it is a modified version of their sales page, or if the user rejects the removal of this information, in example), I tag it with a speedy tag. Fortunately, most of these blatant spam are also copyvio, as these users would copy the sales page from their site here. Regardless of how the article is tagged, the user must be informed about why his article is going to be deleted.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support - Mike | Talk 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support most contribs are vandal-fighting and copyvio catching. There has been an emphasis on all-rounded admins who write articles well, but I believe an extra person to delete copyvios (instead of just flagging them) would still benefit the 'pedia. Kavadi carrier 16:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support semper fi — Moe 16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support excellent user, great answers to questions, has a real use for the tools. Eluchil404 16:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong suppport as one of the many people who have dropped by his talk page offering to nominate him, after seeing him work harder than other admins at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. From what I've seen, ReyBrujo is very polite and hard-working, attributes we need in admins. --Interiot 16:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong Support Another great user. When I first came across him I thought he was one. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 16:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mammoth Strong Support!!! Rey is an outstanding user, experienced, friendly, and is obviously aware of everything that is expected in an administrator, as easily witnessed by his most commendable and extensive participation in WP:ER. Also speedy tagging, countervandalism/spam, etc, etc, etc. I could go on forever.--Húsönd 16:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 16:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong support. Rey is one of the most knowledgeable users around. Also per [5]. -- Steel 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per nom. Michael 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Looks like he could be very useful with the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Looks Good! FireSpike 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No problems here. A very good editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Good faith editor, has a clear need for the tools, should make a great admin. Glad he finally decided to run. --W.marsh 18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support per nom. John254 18:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per nom and for his honesty and throughness. bibliomaniac15 Review? 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support thoughtful, positive, and performs tasks to completion. Excellent work at WP:ER. Dar-Ape 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I've liked what he has had to say in copyright policy discussions. I am also surpriused that he was not already an admin. -- Donald Albury 20:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support per all above, clearly qualified. Newyorkbrad 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support per all, good editor ST47Talk 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Merovingian ※ Talk 22:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support You left an excellently worded review for me, so I can tell that you are familiar with wiki-policy. You don't seem to be the person that would misuse the tools. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Yes. --Doc^g 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. I'm Nishkid64 and I support this user. Nishkid64 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support a level-headed and experienced user who can use the tools. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support per norm.Sharkface217 01:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strong support as yet another of the many editors who had previously offered to nomimate him for adminship. — TKD::Talk 02:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support why oppose his nomination? KazakhPol 03:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support absolutely, don't know if he passes my criteria, but I don't care, this is an execption †he Bread 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support A great user who would greatly help clean up vandalism, if granted the tools. Hello32020 03:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support: I've just implemented his tool right now. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. I read somewhere a few months ago that he wasn't considering being an admin, otherwise I might have offered to nominate him myself. riana_dzasta 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong Support How could I not? You are an excellent contributor and I greatly appreciate your review on my Editor Review. Keep up the great work! Wikipediarules2221 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support A good user! Jam01 07:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate. - 07:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Ayuda! ^{If this is wrong, tell me.}  Jorcogα  08:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. How the hell are you not already one? – Chacor 08:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Thought he was one too! -- Lost^(talk) 09:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Very nice! --Mr. Lefty (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Of course. A very good list of RfA candidates right now. — Deckiller 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. A very great contribution on main space. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Good candidate, he'll do well with the tools. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. support, good work! /wangi 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Exceptionally qualified (contribs), very helpful (editor review), will use tools well (question 1). Picaroon9288 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support You've always been kind and helpful when I had any questions, and levelheaded during the argument with Kranar. Ddcc 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support A good candidate for adminship --Ageo020 (T • C) 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Support. Kind user, actively helping on giving out reviews to users in WP:Editor review. Should be a very good admin. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Strong support I thought he was an admin, a good one! He's very active in video game related articles. Dionyseus 04:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Good editor, very active. Iridescence talk • contrib 05:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Excellent editor, will make a great admin. --SunStar Net 10:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Deserved! -- Szvest 10:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]
55. Wow, that's a lot of copyvio removal work. Keep it up! (Radiant) 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. I love it when the decision is this easy :-) Tireless defender of the project against copyvios, give him the mop to help with the work. Guy 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, Guy, in RfAs, admins write often about wielding the "mop and bucket" . So much vandalism reversion, spam deletion and warning goes on by non-admins that I wonder what admins' "graduation" to mops and buckets implies for us non-admins. Does this mean we're scrubbing toilets and sinks? Chipping paint? Unclogging drains? --A. B. 16:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (scrubber/chipper)[reply]

    PS, ReyBrujo has been a great scrubber/chipper! --A. B. 16:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

57. Support Yet another wonderful candidate. [Insert cliché here] -- tariqabjotu 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strong, come-back-from-Wikibreak, Support. The only RfA candidate to date to have ever earned the coveted Spamstar of Glory for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. 00:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support he left me an editor review that was very detailed, had constructive criticism and showed a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policy. No major, or even minor, civility problems that I see. Seems like a good choice for admin.--Jersey Devil 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support- It's about time you ran!--SUIT^{What? 42} 02:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support- Looks pretty good. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - I have had a chance to observe and appreciate the work of ReyBrujo as our areas of activity have intersected while dealing with inapporpriate external links. ReyBrujo is familiar with policy, knows when to be assertive and when to back off. ReyBrujo will do a fine job with mop and bucket. JonHarder 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. I have also noticed Rey's fantastic reviews and his valuable work at WP:SCV. I am very happy to support his RfA, but Rey, I would really like to see you particpate in RfA's. I feel you are very good at evaluating candidates and your input would be highly valued. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong Support Great editor who I encountered on Album Wikiproject where he significantly helped me with some of the technical issues I was having difficulties with. - Patman2648 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Sound. Rich Farmbrough, 11:09 14 November 2006 (GMT).
66. Support When I'm 64.... - A good user and a credit to Wikipedia. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 12:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Huh? You aren't one!--Ac1983fan 16:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Happy to support a trustworthy fellow Wiki-gnome! :) Xoloz 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Of course --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support thorough and well-informed, works hard to address any concerns ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support nice answers and contributes well. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. Zaxem 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support WikiGnomes tend to make excellent admins as they are not usually drawn into situations where they are tempted to abuse their privileges. I have only come across ReyBrujo occasionnaly but I like the little I saw and the RfA application is solid. Pascal.Tesson 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - looks good --T-rex 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - has my support. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Strong support- Why isn't he an admin yet? Great editor and should do well as an admin. --teh tennisman 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. 'Support'Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support ReyBrujo was very helpful in answering my questions about fair use rationales and gave me a very thorough editor review. He would definately make a good admin and contribute to the project greatly with the tools. Cbrown1023 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Good candidate, highly likely to be an excellent admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose Culverin? ^Talk 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Would you like to elaborate on your oppostion? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Culverin, you don't have to state why you oppose, but it would be helpful for Rey if you do. riana_dzasta 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   If you don't even state your opinion, how would the bureaucrats even consider your vote? :S AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I was not going to reply to opinions unless they requested it, but decided to do it before too many people "piled" against Culverin.

   I have found that one of the advantages of doing extensive editor reviews is that I get to understand editors while examining their contributions. If you want to put it in a way, reviewing an editor puts me in his or her place, as that is the only way to guess what made him or her say or do something at a determined moment. I think he opposed because of this, and I can understand him. Please don't disregard his choice because of lack of words. As I said in my statement, I really appreciate opinions regardless of their "alignment", and his has been as useful as the others. -- ReyBrujo 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Well basically I believe that you need to be more of a inclusionist. Culverin? ^Talk 08:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral - Don't know this user. --evrik ^(talk) 22:31, 17 November 2006 (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.