Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hemlock Martinis

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

Hemlock Martinis

Final: (42/15/3); ended 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs) - Hello everybody. I'm nominating myself for adminship primarily so that I can assist with clearing up the backlog of WP:CFD. I am deeply troubled that there are discussions there that remain unclosed even after being open for almost two weeks. On Wikipedia, I consider myself something of a specialist: some editors are vandalfighters, some are writers, some are proofreaders, and some are photographers. Personally, I try to focus my efforts on categorization. I got my start with categorization when I manually diffused around 1200 pages in Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. Since then, I have been working on categorizing articles in Category:Uncategorized pages and monitoring categories in Category:Categories requiring diffusion. I've also tried to assist with WP:CSD, and during my Dante-like travels through the horror that can be Category:Uncategorized pages at times, I've nominated over 300 articles for speedy deletion, most of which were successful. I'd be perfectly willing to stand open to recall should my nomination succeed. Hemlock Martinis 05:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my nomination. --Hemlock Martinis 06:09, 6 April 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: First and foremost, I want to help clear the backlog on WP:CFD and make sure that it stays unclogged. As I said above, the existence of nominations that are twelve days old and still unclosed is unacceptable, and I would like to do something about it. Past that, I'll assist in anything that involves categorization.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with all the categorization work I have done, most notably the aforementioned Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States and my continual monitoring of Category:European Union. When it comes to actual articles, my cleanup of Law in Star Trek was especially pleasing - the shift from parenthetical citations to proper wikiformatting made the page far more readable. Also, in that same vein, I am currently working on an article similar to Law in Star Trek, except dealing mostly with the medical aspect of it and how it influences and is influenced by the real world. It can be found at Medicine in Star Trek.
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: I've tried to keep all my contact with other Wikipedians civil and hopefully have been successful at this. Occasionally, I encounter differences of opinion as to how best to diffuse or categorize, such as this recent debate over the categorization of congressional subcommittees but I was pleased with how it was resolved (even if I was wrong about the matter at hand! :D). Thankfully, my encounters with my fellow Wikipedians has been nothing but civil, which is one of my reasons for continuing to stay with the project.
Optional question by After Midnight 0001
4. You may have done a deal of category editing, but I only see you having contributed to 3 CFDs. Can you please discuss more your qualification to be closing these discussions?
A: You are quite correct in that I have only done three CFDs. However, I do have an extensive understanding of categorization policy and how it works, as shown through my work that I've mentioned previously. In addition, I'd also like to mention that when it comes to categories, many editors can and do apply the I know it when I see it concept to the debates. This is why many of the CFD debates usually follow the lines of "Keep", "Delete" and "Merge" rather than the longwinded discussions that often occur on AfDs. It doesn't take a scholar to disseminate whether or not a category is appropriate - you simply know it when you see it, based often of the current category naming conventions. It is up to the closer to enforce the consensus drawn from the discussion. Unfortunately, the lack of efficiency in closing CFDs and the creation of a backlog greatly lags the process, which is why I want to help out. --Hemlock Martinis 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have clarified this answer since I originally wrote it. The changes can be found here. --Hemlock Martinis 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Kelly Martin
5. What is, in your own words, the purpose of the English Wikipedia? How does the English Wikipedia fit into the broader purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation? How have your contributions helped to forward those purposes? How will you contribute toward them in the future?
A: To me, Wikipedia is a perfect tool to fight ignorance. By allowing people a free NPOV open-ended encyclopedia, we are opening them up to entirely new worlds and ideas, new people and places, and most of all, new viewpoints. However, Wikipedia's currently a bit haphazard when it comes to cohesion. My work on categorization allows for people to more quickly access information by putting it in places that they can find it. Sure, I may not pound out featured articles every week, but I'd like to think that I am in some part making Wikipedia a better place. And that's really what it's all about. --Hemlock Martinis 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Akhilleus
6. Above you said "It doesn't take a scholar to disseminate whether or not a category is appropriate - you simply know it when you see it, based off of the current category naming conventions and community consensus." Yet some category disputes become protracted and acrimonious because Wikipedians disagree about whether they're appropriate. Have you seen category discussions, either on articles or at WP:CFD, that were cases of reasonable people disagreeing? If you were closing such a discussion, how would you proceed?
A: An excellent question. One that springs to mind is one that actually involves me: a debate about whether or not EU categories should follow national naming conventions. In this case, both people have reasonable contentions. Those for renaming argue that by placing the European Union categories in the same naming conventions as national articles, we would be misleading unknowing readers into believing that the EU was a country. Those who argue for keeping the category as-is (like myself) note that the EU does carry out functions similar to an actual country, and that by changing it for just the EU we'd be disrupting the naming conventions. Now, I can't fairly evaluate how I would close this one since I have participated in it. There are two important guidelines to follow in a case like you've described. One is part of WP:DGFA: "4. When in doubt, don't delete." The second is that one must evaluate the arguments made on both sides; that is, are they effectively disproved by the other side? Is the majority of votes simply a parroting of one argument, or are there multiple arguments brought up by multiple editors? That's my closing philosophy. --Hemlock Martinis 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Very reasonable request, very experienced in category space where he intends to use the admin tools most of the time, last 500 contributions don't show any problems, and has a very kickass username. Grandmasterka 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see an incident where you removed two speedy tags instead of using {{hangon}}. However, the editor who added them was being disruptive and this was an appropriate application of WP:IAR. Grandmasterka 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Terence 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I'll give a support on the basis that once you get more involved with admin tasks and using the tools then your user Talk editcount will skyrocket past the >500 edits as of this timestamp. (aeropagitica) 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - A promising candidate who does lot of helpful work for Wikipedia such as category sorting and article re-naming. Also seems to be well experienced in Wikipedia policies and admin work. Camaron1 | Chris 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support -As per Grandmasterka. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support convincing nomination. I'll always support one who works on categories and does his work well. Nice user name, by the way. :-) —Anas talk? 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I have no doubt you will use the tools wisely and effectively. --Ozgod 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Per all above comments. -Mschel 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. A generally good editor, friendly, helpful. I think he could use those admin tools very skillfully. Retiono Virginian 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. ANYONE with the experience that wants to help unclog WP:CFD has my full support. I have been very frustrated with this in the past. Good Luck! --Bfissa 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Candidate is good, even with the little WP:CfD experience as other users have pointed out. Captain panda 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Looks good to me. Picaroon 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Great editor. Have tag-teamed with him a few times through CAT:U. No worries at all that he'll abuse the tools. --Slowking Man 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support the opponents' reasons aren't strong enough to oppose, IMO, and his experience is sufficient for adminship. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Someone who's willing to help with backlogs?! Grab 'em quick before they change their mind ;) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per criteria set out on my user page. Edivorce 01:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After careful consideration, I am supporting this nomination. Hemlock's answers are not bad, but not great either. I had a discussion with him on IRC which was unconvincing, and I think he has unreasonable expectations about category management on Wikipedia. However, he seems to have some grasp of most of the key Wikipedia principles and appears capable of both contemplation and civil discourse. Certainly not the first person I would seek out to offer adminship to, but also not someone who I think adminship needs to be withheld from. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)(Changed to neutral 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  17. Support - Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Second that. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support My first response was 'hell no' a category-geek not a well-rounded wikipedian. But then, he works at an important job where no-one else wants to work, why should we ask him to go and compete with the FA crowd, or be an also-run voter at AfD. Keep up the good work, and if the mop helps, here let's chuck you one.--Docg 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: As in "I thought he was one" support. Use the tools well (like you won't).  ~Steptrip 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? you went from Neutral to Support on the basis of you already thought he was one? If you thought that, why were you Neutral in the first place? --After Midnight 0001 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SupportI too have a bit of concern regarding the lack of CFD experience. However, he is unquestionably well versed in the larger catagorization work and think that gives him a good basis for growth. As someone as said, his answer to #1 is rather narrow but then sometimes it is useful to have someone a bit more specialized. There is no evidence to suggest he will be abusive. JBEvans 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Note to 'crats: this support was added by User:JodyB KillerChihuahua?!? 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Changed from neutral - trust is all that matters. YechielMan 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support looks experienced enough.-- danntm T C 03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, candidate is qualified and seems to be unlikely to ab/misuse the tools. He will make an excellent administrator, I'm sure. --Rory096 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak support. I do advise that he start slowly as he gains experience with admin tools. ChazBeckett 12:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, seems very unlikely to misuse or abuse admin tools, good contributions. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support Great question answers and good category experience outweigh the lack of article experience, but only by a little. Great name though, when I first saw it quickly, I thought it said "Hemlock Martinez" and I was instantly hankering for tacos. And in the end, can any of us argue when we're hankering for tacos? Just H 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefblocked sock - Y (Y NOT?) 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, concerns raised below are trivial and do not warrant opposition. Candidate has ample experience. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Thanks for answering my optional question. I'm still a bit worried that your attitude towards CFD closes is too simplistic, so I want to urge you to move with caution and give full explanations when you close a controversial discussion; but I see no sign that you will abuse the tools, so I support. (Man, I would love a taco--but you shouldn't consume Hemlock, whether it's in a tortilla or a drink! That stuff's poisonous!) --Akhilleus (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, need more common sense at CFD. — CharlotteWebb 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --dario vet (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Seems like a fine candidate..--Cometstyles 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Can't imagine this user imploding Wikipedia with the admin tools, and anyone willing to take on the thankless task of WP:CFD is just fine by me. Plus, his username is made of win. ♠PMC♠ 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, anyone that wishes to help at CFD is good to go by me.--Wizardman 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I highly doubt Hemlock Martinis will mess up the 'pedia as an admin, therefore I'm supporting. James086Talk | Email 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support seems like a good admin candidate. no reason to think that he would abuse the tools --rogerd 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support absolutely. Adminship is no big deal, and he knows his stuff. Madman bum and angel 23:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I see nothing that leads me to believe that he would abuse the admin tools. Frise 02:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Singopo 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - There is no question of trustworthiness in the opposition. Hemlock understands policy, some more than others. -- Jreferee 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support for fine answers and good edit history. Adminship is no big deal. ➪HiDrNick! 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Satisfied. —dgiestc 06:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Unless your explanation to After Midnight really surprises, I don't see having the experience necessary to succeed in helping with CfD closures, the area in which you wish to specialize. Nice name, though, :) and I admire those open to recall; I'll be happy to support in a few months. Xoloz 15:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - weak answer to Q1, lowish project space, low talk page and user talk page edits. Addhoc 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're building an encyclopedia here, not MySpace. --Rory096 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't understand. Just H 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the only article he mentions is poorly sourced. Addhoc 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, which article are you talking about? --Hemlock Martinis 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Law in Star Trek - the article still lacks any reliable secondary sources. Addhoc 19:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The original author of the page cites a book in "Sources" written by two Texas A&M scholars. --Hemlock Martinis 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry, I missed that. However, all of the inline citations point towards other Wikipedia articles for episodes, which at best could be deemed primary sources. Addhoc 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like to see an example of how I cite external sources, I recommend viewing Medicine in Star Trek, which I just updated this afternoon. --Hemlock Martinis 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The New Scientist article you cite doesn't mention Star Trek - the connection appears to be original research. Addhoc 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is turning into a discussion about the article in general rather than my RfA, could we please move this to that article's talk page? --Hemlock Martinis 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Addhoc. I'd like to see a broader range of experience. Michael 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Due to lack of experience and weak answers--$UIT 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per answer to my optional question. --After Midnight 0001 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain what it is about my answer that made you change to Oppose? --Hemlock Martinis 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, I feel that your concept may work fine for the discussions that are obvious, but the backlog primarily exists on the discussions that are difficult and or contentious. I just don't believe that someone who hasn't participated in those discussions is someone who I want to be making the tough closing decisions. --After Midnight 0001 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be wrong of me to participate in discussions that I might have to close. --Hemlock Martinis 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misunderstanding me; allow me try to be more clear. If you have no history of participating in these discussions, then I do not believe that you have the experience to be able to make decisions regarding how to close them now. I am not saying that you should close discussions that you have been party to, but rather that you need that experience to do the job effectively. --After Midnight 0001 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reaffirming my oppose based on the fact that you are now editing your answers in this RFA. Please stand by the statements that you make without changing them to try to make everyone happy. If you do feel the need to change, strike out the old text instead of replacing it, please. Also, you have on 2 occasions needlessly refactored other peoples comments, and even though they were for minor things, I think that this should not be done and makes me wonder what other licenses you may take if given the tools. --After Midnight 0001 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification isn't allowed anymore? It's about time, we certainly don't want admins who try to communicate as well as possible! Your extra line broke the entire numbering system. Should I remove it, or would that be taking a license with your comment that I shouldn't be taking. --Rory096 03:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read my statement. I didn't say that he couldn't clarify; I said he should leave the old text in place in addition to the new. Also, I have no problem where he has corrected numbering, but in my opinion it is unnecessary to correct other peoples typos. --After Midnight 0001 04:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any other personal preferences of which future candidates should be aware? Perhaps you are very opposed to the serial comma? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check my user page, you will find several things that need updating, but I still prefer the serial comma. LOL --After Midnight 0001 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be necessary, but that doesn't mean it's unusual or disallowed. This is a wiki, and there are many users who occasionally correct someone else's typo. So what? That's a good thing, as it's the people who pay attention to details like that who are the best for copyediting and fixing articles. --Rory096 04:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sorry but I think that your focus is a little too single issue and your edit count in general and particularly at Wikipedia (148) is not broad enough for my support at this time.--VS talk 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Again, the answers are not necessarily what we need. What we need is your take on Wikipedia, not categorisation-it does not describe you, a lá VirtualSteve. (note:you seem to contradict yourself when you say that Wikipedia has a NPOV, yet you talk about viewpoints.) -HuBmaN!!!! 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the multitude of pages on Wikipedia about different viewpoints. --Hemlock Martinis 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Insufficient project space experience, only 158 project edits, and 9 project talk edits. Needs more community participation. Has not been very active for the last 5 months. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a fair bit of CSD work over the past two months, which may help explain why my edit count is lower as of late. --Hemlock Martinis 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not enough project space or project space discussion participation. I'm also troubled by his answer to Q4 which implies that he is inclined to "shoot from the hip" instead of interpreting and moderating policy based consensus. When need admins that are familiar with policy and how to apply it, not admins that make decisions from the gut. NeoFreak 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it seems that I didn't clarify my answer quite enough. In my example, I was commenting on how the I know it when I see it doctrine can apply to CFD debates in general and how an editor's gut response is a large part of CFD discussions. I have removed the vagueness from my Q4 answer and I apologize for the misunderstanding. --Hemlock Martinis 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd ask that you restore the previous version of your answer and add clarifications as additional comments. Anything else seems revisionist. NeoFreak 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a note explaining it and included the change.--Hemlock Martinis 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, sorry. Wikipedia space count is too low, as is edit summary usage for minor edits. Unimpressive answers. Please keep up the good work and try again in a few months.--Húsönd 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose appears to lack some of the community communication skills necessary for the mop.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Alkavir switched back from Neutral at 6:44 UTC, well after the scheduled close.[1]--Hemlock Martinis 07:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter, by choice or inaction a bureaucrat can leave it open longer. —dgiestc 07:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that this is an "inaction" case then. Nevertheless, the timestamp on his oppose is still misleading. --Hemlock Martinis 07:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Regretful oppose Hemlock is a great editor, but I see no contributions to any community/administrator noticeboards, and only one report to WP:AIV (where the directions weren't followed, the anon was reported after only one warning). This, coupled with only 143 edits across all talk namespaces leads me to the conclusion that Hemlock has not taken part in enough actual discussion with other members of the community. As an administrator, you will take a lot of crap from other users, and you need to know your way around here in order to effectively explain and defend yourself when the situation arises. You are on your way to becoming an admin, but at the moment I cannot support you. I'm sorry. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Self nomination, implies arrogance and not enough support/ trust from the Wikipedia community. Rackabello 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to Rackabello - Self-nominations are permitted under the rules and many editors do nominate themselves when they think they are ready - hence the chance for the rest of the community to decide by !vote.--VS talk 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How silly of you Rackabello! - Y (Y NOT?) 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I feel obligated to point out that Rackabello has opposed on every self-nominated candidate currently up for adminship, and was described as "a brand new user who has done little beyond voting on things". Based upon this fact, and the fact that his reasoning is largely that "self-nomination is arrogant", his vote was struck out of another current RfA by a fellow opposer. The diff to this edit is here: [2]. This is no different. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Xoloz and Answer to Q4 - Y (Y NOT?) 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Like the above, I would prefer some more experience from this candidate. >Radiant< 08:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral pending answer to optional question. --After Midnight 0001 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) changing to oppose --After Midnight 0001 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I noticed the lack of CFD experience in my editor review of this candidate. I have no reason to distrust him, but I think a little more XFD experience would be a desideratum. YechielMan 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to support because of the response. YechielMan 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: He clearly shows that he could do much more with the tools than clearing a category backlog. If you will do vandalism work / page protections, then I will gladly change my vote.  ~Steptrip 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I've Changed my vote to support.  ~Steptrip 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that CFD is all that I'll do, I was just explaining that the mess that it is is the primary reason for my RfA. For example, part of what I like to do is monitor Category:Uncategorized pages. While going through it, I often see articles that are vandalism and articles that have been vandalized and I've speedy deleted over 300 articles while doing so. Sure, that may seem small compared to veteran vandal hunters, but this is Wikipedia. Every little bit helps. --Hemlock Martinis 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To throw in my two cents, few admins use all of the admin abilities consistently. I've pretty much never edited MediaWiki pages, for instance, and some admins almost never block, but do tons of deletions as part of closing AfDs. We need all the (good) admins we can get. --Slowking Man 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I see both sides on this one. I see that this user has done lots of work with categories, but I think he could use some more Wikipedia namespace edits. I'm split. Gutworth 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I've decided that my concerns about this candidate, combined with his lack of WikiProject endorsement, preclude support at this time. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Great future prospect but needs just a bit more experience as noted by others above before I can support. --A. B. (talk) 05:29, 12 April 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.