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

Final: (47/7/4); ended 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mecu (talk · contribs) - I first met Mecu almost a year ago when he was one of the first few users to join the nascent WikiProject College football. He is a dedicated article writer and has created a good deal of our college football content. He also does a lot of work with images and has been an administrator over at Commons for a couple of months now (his Commons RFA passed unanimously). He performs an invaluable service to Wikipedia in the work he does with m:OTRS. I don't know if it's just me or what, but just every email I have sent to permissions-en in the last few months has been handled by Mecu. Four months ago, he stood for an RFA that was unsuccessful because of an unlikely-to-be-repeated mistake in understanding speedy deletion policy. I believe that granting adminship to Mecu would be valuable to the project and would give him the tools that he needs to better serve Wikipedia. Thank you. --BigDT 01:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - it is with great pleasure that I am able to co-nominate Mecu for adminship. I'll admit it from the start, this is my go-to guy for every single image related question I have - he's up there with the greats. We have way too few admins who are capable of dealing with our image deletions and there's often huge backlogs at Ifd. Mecu would do amazing work in this area, and I fully trust him to make a thorough job of it, and fix any articles with have been disrupted by the deletions. CAT:CSD is swamped with images to be deleted, this is where Mecu would shine - he would help clear out those backlogs and, despite those concerns on his previous RfA, I am in no doubts that he now fully understands the speedy deletion criteria. On top of all that, he volunteers on OTRS, a very trusted role within the community, showing he is very much able to deal with delicate situations which is a great feature for an aspiring administrator. I would be honoured to have Mecu on the team, and I really hope you can help me and BigDT give him the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: I was a little reluctant to add in my co-nom upon being asked, after last RfA. However, I went through many of his recent edits, and he is truly an asset in the image department, where admins are sorely needed, so his adminship would be great there. Anything from the last RfA seems to have been cleared up, and I think the two people above me have said plenty about him. After lookign through his edits rather strenuously, I have absolutely no doubt that he would make a great admin. I mean, if he's a commons admin, he's clearly trustworthy.--Wizardman 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you for the kind words from all the nominators. MECU≈talk 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: Image processing and Wikipedia:OTRS work. More specifically, in line with my previous RFA answer to this question, image deletion with IFD, and all the other speedy deletion reasons: no source, no license, orphaned fair use, etc. Also, having admin access will allow me to process more OTRS items where the article/image has been deleted and then permission/license is then received (or the E-mail is process after the deletion). I'll estimate there are currently about 75-100 E-mails in OTRS awaiting processing for this reason, that have been sitting around for about 3 months. I have been getting more into vandalism removal since working with OTRS as well, but only enough to remove the vandalism that is reported via that method. It would also be helpful to block a few users that have had the many warnings and yet continue to vandalize afterwards, without having to go hassle an admin. Lastly, some page protection, especially for BLP concerns, would be helpful as well (also because of OTRS).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Please see my previous RFA for more on this question. Since then, Ralphie, which I took from a strong stub to GA status on something that probably wouldn't have been done otherwise is probably my #1 accomplishment ever on Wikipedia, especially since I started it from basically nothing (what was there when I got there was eventually mostly removed). Why Ralphie? I'm a CU fan, and it's a very unique mascot with a unique history that will expand soon too. I've taken quite a few images specifically for use on Wikipedia (and to serve a penance). The one image I'm most proud of is the one you'll see in Dan Hawkins (coach). Also helped get 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings up to featured list. I was also the catalyst to get the new file upload wizard going, though I did little to help get the idea realized otherwise and wasn't the first to come up with the idea, I'm still proud of the end result nonetheless. Most of my article work is motivated by my love for (American) football; college football especially.

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: Nothing major since my last RFA. I still believe calm discussion is the best result, and it's always important to realize that you may not always agree or be able to come to a conclusion through discussion, doing what you think is the best for Wikipedia in the end is usually the best result. Giving up on minor issues is for the benefit of Wikipedia as well (lose the battle to win the war).

4. What does IAR mean to you and what is its spirit?

A. (Note: This was added after the above questions.) WP:IAR means that although we have policies and guidelines (aka rules), none of them are so permanent or fixed such that they can't be ignored at some time as long as there is a valid reason you are justified in doing so in which the end result is the betterment of Wikipedia. An example would be violating the WP:MOS to make an article look better. The "spirit" is similar to WP:BOLD, in that you shouldn't feel bogged down by the rules to try and make Wikipedia better. With that said, we do have policies and guidelines for a reason, so you can not ignore them just for the sake of it. There must be a valid, justifiable reason that others are likely to agree with. Discussion should definitely occur before or after one is to enact IAR, and if others are clearly against that action, then IAR is probably not a good idea. IAR is not an explanation, but permission to do something with a valid justification. MECU≈talk 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by AldeBaer

5. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

• See Mecu's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Mecu: Mecu (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

• It's interesting how Wizardman notes Mecu is a commons admin, so can be trusted fine. Yet, if you look at Cool Cat's RfA (a commons admin) Wizardman opposes: "Hasn't learned from previous RfA's, oppose per all. Being supported by only the nom and fenton doesn't excatly help you either. Better to withdraw.--Wizardman 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)" attacking another user in the process. I don't see how being a commons admin has to do with anything, it and us are two very different projects. Majorly (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly me, I thought this was an RFA for Mecu, not Wizardman. Who cares what Wizardman said about someone else? --BigDT 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BigDT is right. We're not here to examine the nominator; we're here to evaluate the candidate. If you wish to pursue the matter, take it to Wizardman's talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe less sarcasm, but it's just something I noticed. It isn't an oppose comment, just an observation. And since it is about this RfA, I think it can be discussed here. And to say the nominator isn't examined ever is just false. Majorly (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Besides the four month difference there, Mecu hasn't done anything at enwiki that would cause me caution, unlike Cool Cat. It's very hard to compare the two users anyway.--Wizardman 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said elsewhere, there is a blurry line between systematically applying adminship criteria and just not liking a user. Of course, saying "Oppose, I don't like this user" doesn't work, so people are often pressed to come up with bad excuses and petty details to support their claims. It is hard to say if this is the case anywhere, because of the nature of the "line". Gracenotes^T § 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as one of the nominators. --BigDT 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as co-nom.--Wizardman 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support seen you around making good edits. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. SupportHas an awesome amount of experience across the whole project, and I do not think that one misunderstanding highlighted in his last RfA should carry through. Will make a great admin.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support You mean you're not a sysop already? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. weak Support I have had many interactions with this user here and on IRC and all have been good. This user is deserving of the tools. Good luck:)--James, La gloria è a dio 01:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Im going to assume good faith here and support despite some problems in Mecu's understanding of image policy. I'm sorry, but policy on fair use is murky, at best. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support because Matthew opposes, you must be doing something right. Nick 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What a ridiculous thing to say. Majorly (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Nick, that really is not a good reason to support someone. I also consider it a bit rude to say "because Matthew opposes, you must be doing something right." It is pretty much saying Matthew is stupid.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   −10 HP! The attack is 61.548% effective! Gracenotes^T § 01:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. Yes, support - assuming good faith, that oppose against PeaceNT was either misunderstood by me, or simply out-of-character. Daniel 01:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. – Steel 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support: I trust this user in his admin duties, and am willing to dismiss the one incident below as an anomaly if the candidate more conspicuously assumes good faith. Gracenotes^T § 01:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support per BigDT.Rlevse 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Helpful user whom I have seen around, as per the last RfA. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Knowledgeable user etc. I am ok with process wonkery. Does good work. -- Y not? 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, seen him around editing, good user. I can trust him with the tools. Terence 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Matthew has a good point to oppose but I don't see it that way cause I believe you are more than ready..Keep striving for excellence ..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 05:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Excellent candidate, helpful and friendly. Xoloz 06:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support A great candidate. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support based on contributions. A lot of what he does is policy wonkery, but it's very well-done policy wonkery. The upload wizard is a great idea, and his image contributions and work on Commons are admirable. I also see him defending newbies and dealing with the Articles for Creation backlog, a thankless job that I tried once and quickly grew tired of. Overall, I am impressed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support per rspeer. No serious deal-breakers. —AldeBaer 08:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Butter Support Will ^(talk) 10:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Neil ╦ 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Mecu has been doing good steady work to build and maintain the encyclopedia. He could do more on the maintenance side as an Admin -Nv8200p talk 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Editor has demonstrated a need for the tools, and nothing to suggest that the editor will misuse the tools. PGWG 12:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. You will be a great help in the image namespace, sorting everything out over there i'm sure. Stwalkerster talk 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support a good candidate. Yonatan ^talk 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. + It will help the user's editing and Wikipedia in a beneficial way. I care little about how people express themselves in RfA. Grudges and grandstanding are all aside here. I think some folks could use a nice walk with some fresh air. Adminship isn't a cookie. It's more like fruitcake. Keegan^talk 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Mecu was the first person I ran into that tagged one of my images. He told what to do and why and we got it fixed. He's knowledgeable but not perfect. Nevertheless, I think we give him the mop. JodyB _talk 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - as co-nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - Looks fine to me. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong support Prolific worker, need more Commons/WP admins, need more people who get images (I have pointed out Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about images on Wikipedia, which he assisted in writing, to people who ask me questions about images over e-mail... for that page alone, I think he merits support). Regarding the PeaceNT thing... at 72 supports, 1 oppose doesn't make a dent, but it does help the nominee understand where they might be going wrong. RfA is a discussion, not a vote, as far as I remembered... not just an occasion for everyone to talk about how much they adore a person's work, but also a venue for constructive feedback. We are also suffering from a serious shortage of admins who are fans of Death Cab for Cutie. Riana ⁂ 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Concerns of wonkery do not convince me to oppose. There are many good things, so I will support. Captain panda 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support, I think Riana has succintly expressed my thoughts. Adminship should not be considered a big deal when the user has shown that they are capable of great things. --Iamunknown 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support the only problem with this user appears to be that he cares a lot about our fair use policies. But I'm struggling to understand how exactly that's any sort of detriment. The fact that Mecu opposed a handful of popular candidates does not strike me as any sort of valid reason to oppose his RFA -- in fact, it strikes me as completely unrelated to using the admin tools. --JayHenry 03:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Why not? Seems like a very good editor to me. SalaSkan 18:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, I don't see anything to suggest he's an anti-fair use fanatic in general (if he is, correct me), although he takes a hard line on userspace. He opposed me in my last RfA for having some fair use images in my userspace that had been sitting around unnoticed for two years, which I found rather unreasonable, but I can look past that. The answer to question 4 is very good. Everyking 05:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per noms and Riana. Sarah 08:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per nominators and above. Great user, very friendly. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Per above. We always need admins willing to do image work. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. In all of my dealings with Mecu, I've found him to be knowledgeable about policy and how to apply it. We certainly need more help at IFD. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Mecu knows his stuff. It would have been better to double check all his uploads complied with policy before throwing rocks at others - but I won't oppose for that reason alone. From his recent contribs it appears that the issues that convinced me to oppose the last RfA have been resolved. He is an effective admin on Commons and users with sysop rights on both projects are very useful. WjBscribe 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Yo. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - Plenty of good reasons listed above. --VS ^talk 09:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I would like to see another image admin. --wpktsfs (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support All the reasons above are good, and I do not agree with one of the comments an oppose person left. He is ready for adminship.Politics rule 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. SupportSumoeagle179 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Two co-nominations by very good users, looks like this user won't abuse the tools, makes very good contributions, and the Commons RfA strongly convinces me that this user will work very well with the images portion of administrative activity. I've never interacted with this user, but I've seen this user several times. What else can I say... Sr13 11:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose — Sorry, but: not yet. I think you're here to help the project, but I do not believe you're admin material [yet]. Your primary/only editing habits at Wikipedia are to tag image, using scripts, some consider that helpful (I'm one of them)... but I consider writing an encyclopaedia to be more important. I must also oppose you for this oppose to the RfA of PeaceNT, frankly I found that to be pretty lame policy wonkery -- we do take copyright seriously, but we do not chastise users who're bending the rules to improve the encyclopaedia. Secondly I'm not sure if you understand our NFCC fully, see this image which is replaceable fair use, with a rationale not compliant with the NFCC. A few more with incorrect rationales: this and this. You're here in good faith, but you're just not yet ready yet. Sort the issues presented here and I'll likely support your next RfA. Matthew 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • Umm ... Image:Dan McCarney.jpg was uploaded before the replaceability policy changed. {{Replaceable fair use}} was created a month after that image was uploaded and the policy was in flux and under discussion for a good while. Mecu can hardly be faulted for uploading an image that was acceptable at the time. The other two images are from July - even earlier. Plenty of us uploaded images that are no longer allowed before the policy changed. --BigDT 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     • No excuses. You can't wonk on one thing but not others, just because the templates were created after that doesn't make it an issue, I believe the images still failed the FUC back then -- regardless. He knew what he uploaded, he could of fixed it. Matthew 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
       • Jimbo's statement that initiated the change in interpretation of the policy was on July 31, 2006 [1]. He even said in this statement that it was not policy yet. It took several months for a policy to develop. Expecting him to comply with a policy that didn't exist is ludicrous and considering that he has nearly 1000 image uploads, expecting him to have remembered all of them is silly. --BigDT 00:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
         • I'm not interested in Jimbo's words on the matter, he's no god. Perhaps Mecu should wonk closer to home in the future. Matthew 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
           • Matthew has been annoyed at Mecu for many months due to his good work with images. Plus, the fact that he opposed the first Rfa due to a 3-4 day wikibreak means that caution should be used here.--Wizardman 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
             • I'm annoyed with Mecu? Where did you pull that from? Seriously: do not sprout unsubstantiated bullshit, simple as, very egregious. Matthew 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose we don't need more process wonks. I think your opposes on RfAs (often the only one) regarding an accidental use of a fair use image in userspace is ludicrous. Particularly in PeaceNT's case, she was working on an article, helping to improve the encyclopedia - something I note you don't do much of. Can't you forgive and forget one small mistake? Especially as she has no intention to work with images. Basically Matthew sums it up nicely. Majorly (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Can't you forgive and forget one small mistake? - what about when the boot's on the other foot ? Nick 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong oppose now per conversation. I find him rather stubborn and arrogant, not the sort I want as an admin thanks. Majorly (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Forgiving and trusting are separate things, Nick. Matthew 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Majorly, will you please explain how he has acted "arrogant and stubborn"? I have not seen him act that way. Also, I do not believe that is a good enough reason to oppose if someone is a good, constructive editor.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You change to strong oppose "per conversation", yet I see no conversation. Cite it please--Wizardman 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Wizardman, I see you have cited nothing in your nomination statement, so I'll cite nothing here. Majorly (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   • Comment Wizardman, he probably means on IRC. Both of them are on #wikipedia. Good luck Mecu!:)--James, La gloria è a dio 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     • I think this is the third RFA I've seen opposed in just this week based off something happening in IRC. Majorly, could you please consider citing something -- if not for Wizardman then out of respect for other editors who are trying to make an evaluation for themselves? --JayHenry 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
       • I could post the logs, with Mecu's permission if you're so desperate, but it looks like it'll pass at this stage so it's not needed. Majorly (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
         • Permission granted, as long as the items are not taken out of context (I'll trust you to give the situation summary that led up to my comment(s) so you don't need to get permission from any of the others involved), the items are relatively recent (since my last RFA perhaps? early Feb) and it directly relates to the above claim you have made (which may seem obvious, but I think should be stated nonetheless) that I am "stubborn and arrogant." Perhaps on the talk page would be best? MECU≈talk 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
           • Majorly, I hope my comment didn't come across as badgering. If you have on-wiki evidence that you can provide that this is an incivil user, you should provide it. This RFA is far from being over, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that Mecu is arrogant or stubborn. I try to give candidates as complete an evaluation as possible in RFAs in which I participate. I feel like I don't have all the information you do and don't want to make a partially-informed judgment. If you could help fill the gaps in my understanding it would be genuinely appreciated. --JayHenry 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
             • His standard opposition regarding fair use is something I find stubborn. Is that OK, because there is nothing else I have seen on-wiki and I'd really rather not post logs. Majorly (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per the first two opposers. BH (T|C) 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per first two as well. --~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak Oppose While I think this user does extremely good work where we need more users, the strict standards that led him to oppose an otherwise well qualified admin candidate (PeaceNT) makes me question his priorities (the betterment of the project or strict process). —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment If he is a good user, why are you opposing him because of a bad edit? Jimbo Wales said adminship is not a big deal. We should follow what he says on the subject of adminship.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's several times I noticed Mecu oppose because of a fair use image, not just PeaceNT. Majorly (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   And once again, we don't care Jimbo Wales thinks of adminship. If jimbo doesn't think its such a big deal, then he should make us all admins. BH (T|C) 14:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As Majorly said, that isn't the only time he has opposed otherwise outstanding admin candidates for insignificant mistakes. There is a difference between a valuable user and an admin that would be valuable with the tools. I feel the PeaceNT situation shows Mecu favors strict process wonkery over the spirit of encyclopedia improvement.—Ocatecir ^Talk 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose per the previous objections, I'm sure he's a wonderful person I just don't think that'd he'd make good use of the admin tools and considering his past attitude wikipedia would be better off without his adminship. Elmo 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose, sort of My only contact with this user is related to his goofy attempt to get Thrones (band) and other Southern Lord-related articles deleted. For all I know he's done tons of great stuff that outweighs that, but that makes me apprehensive about him being an admin. --P4k 07:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, that was 5 months ago, he seems to have learned from that.--Wizardman 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral As I said to another user, I'm not in a "voting" mood today. As soon as I saw the name Mecu, I thought, Yes! This is someone I know and trust. But that oppose to PeaceNT's RFA is just strange. She's got 67 support votes, she's a shoo-in to be promoted, and you throw in a random comment about one fair use image too many in userspace. I'm not accusing you of anything terrible, but I just don't understand what you intended to accomplish. RFA has the dual purpose of facilitating a positive result and providing the user with constructive advice and criticism. For you, I would endorse the hoped-for result, but I would also offer some criticism, i.e. to use common sense. Cheers! YechielMan 23:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. I wasn't impressed by that oppose vote on PeaceNT's RfA; it was clear the fair use images hadn't been put there on purpose or with the intent on staying there for any time longer than she worked on the article. This seems like a disruptive, bad faith assuming attitude which is compelling me to withhold any stance seeing as I've never interacted with this user and therefore can't make any final judgments. - Zeibura ^Talk 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. The user's overall contributions look good to me, but the above mentioned opposition to PeaceNT's RfA does leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I also believe that too much strict devotion to process is a dangerous trait for decisionmakers. That incident is just enough to keep me from supporting. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I like what I see, but the issues raised above prevent me from submitting a support vote. I'm not sure, so I'll stay neutral here. Jmlk17 08:36, 13 June 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.