Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel J. Leivick

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

Final (60/3/4); Originally scheduled to end 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Leivick (talk · contribs) - Daniel J. Leivick has been editing Wikipedia for two years, during which time he has made nearly 8,000 edits. He is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles and has done great work improving various articles on cars, while at the same time demonstrating an ability to collaborate well the other editors of these articles. His main area of admin-related expertise is AfD, where he has made careful and substantive additions to discussions, demonstrating a good knowledge of WP policies and guidelines. He is also very active at reverting vandalism to articles he has an interest in. He has a clean block, an unoffensive user page and has his e-mail enabled. His track record of civility and maturity convince me that he would never abuse the tools and would be a good choice for adminship. Epbr123 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am humbled and excited to be nominated and gladly except. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I think my experience and skills would allow me to do good work at WP:AFD closing articles, I have participated in a large number of AFD debates and understand how to determine whether the consensus is to delete or not. I imagine that to start my primary focus would be AFD as this is where I have the most experience, but I would also be able to work with WP:CSD. I have tagged many articles for deletion while on new page patrol and understand how the speedy deletion criteria work. While on new page patrol I have mistakenly tagged only a couple of articles that were not speedily deleted. As an admin I would be even more careful as I know that because their is little oversight, discretion must be used and only articles that clearly meet the speedy deletion criteria should be deleted. As my admin experience expands I am sure I would find other areas where my understanding and skills would be useful.

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

A:I have significantly expanded Lancia 037 although at the time I wasn't particularly familiar with inline citation. More recently I did some work improving Nissan GT-R. I have also have cleaned up a number of problem articles like Brigitte Gabriel. I think my main contribution has been my maintenance of articles on my watchlist. I watch a little over 3,500 pages on wide range of topics and feel that I have done good work keeping them from degrading in quality. At times I may have been a little too quick with the undo button, but since I have been thinking about becoming an admin I have tried to revert fewer good faith edits even if I think they are unneeded, poorly formated or out of place and using talk pages instead. I have put in quite a bit of time going through articles with old notability tags, removing unneeded tags, PRODing and submitting to AFD as part of WP:WPNN. I have spent time on new page patrol, marking articles for speedy deletion, while the record of deletions is not available in my contribution history, my posting of speedy deletion notice tags gives a sense of the number of articles I went through. I also think I have a pretty good history of working through disputes calmly even with difficult users. In addition I am proud of my work at WP:CAR particularly in the recent debate regarding Supercar classification. Finally I am in the process of rewriting the Corvette leaf spring page as a neutral third party in a mediation case as part of a plan to move the article to a general Transverse leaf spring page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: Of course I have, I think it would be pretty impressive to work here for two years and never have any conflicts or stress. Here are a few conflicts that I can think of off the top of my head. Nissan GT-R (I probably should have gone to WP:RFP earlier, lesson learned), List of collegiate secret societies, Brigitte Gabriel and Spinal Tap discography. If I see a conflict coming I try to begin talk page discussion as soon as possible and if I am dealing with a new user I usually send them a message inviting them to discuss instead of edit warring. During discussion I try to keep on topic and work towards a solution that in the best case is amenable to both parties. Some of my conflicts are from some time ago and I might have handled them a little differently now. There was a time when I spent too much time debating during AFDs rather than just putting forth my opinion and letting the situation speak for itself, but in general the methods that I use haven't changed much. I have been able to resolve all of my conflicts without losing my cool. By and large I feel I have handled conflict well, I am a level headed guy and I think before I type. I feel that I have done a good job treating all users with respect even if they do not always return the favor. As an admin I would do my best to be respectful and helpful to other editors(particularly new users) as I feel it should be an admin's responsibility to set the tone and level discourse by example. I understand that dealing with conflict as an admin is a little different then for normal editors, As an admin I would would not use my admin powers as leverage in debate and imagine that I would still go through traditional dispute resolution channels when I am involved in conflicts in the future.

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

This is a pretty serious problem. Assuming this has been proven by a checkuser (If not WP:SSP would be my fist stop), I would bring it up immediately at WP:ANI, I certainly would not do anything unilaterally. In general my opinion would be to give the user in question an opportunity to explain themselves I feel they should also be given a firm warning that if this behavior continues an indefinite block will be in order. However in cases like this it should be community decision decided on a case by case basis by the group rather than a lone admin.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

If I thought that the blocks were out of line, I would discuss it with the other admin. I would not engage in a wheel war or try to solve the dispute behind the other admins back through non conventional channels (although I might send the involved parties an email letting them know where I stood on the issue). If ArbCom rejected the case and the other admin refused to rescind the blocks I think posting the situation at WP:ANI and getting some more opinions would be helpful.

6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

I would use a cool down block only if I think it would be effective in helping solve a dispute. I don't feel blocks should be used punitively. If an editor with an otherwise decent history was involved in a content dispute and was using personal attacks I would warn them to stop immediately. If that was ignored, I think a cool down block might be a good idea to give the user a chance to step back from the situation for a day or so and also prevent them from digging themselves into a deeper hole.

According to WP:BLOCK, the section WP:CDB, cool down blocks should never be used. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the situation that I laid out a block would be appropriate. I guess it wouldn't be defined as a cool down block if the user was engaging in personal attacks. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Will You add yourself to WP:AOR? Why?

A. I definitely would add myself, admin status should be easily revocable if other editors feel that they are not using there powers appropriately.

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, could you describe/summarise:

• 9. Generally, why and when should someone be blocked?

• A: There are many reasons a user can be blocked, but the common theme is protection of the project. If a user is disruptive whether it be through vandalism, personal attacks, spamming or long term difficulties civilly working with others than they may be blocked. In all of these cases the user should be warned prior to the block, but in the case of legal or physical threats, a block should be enacted immediately.

• 10. When would it be appropriate to protect a page?

• A: Full protection should be used in cases were users are engaging in signficant edit warring in order to help facilitate discussion, semi protection should be applied to articles that experience continuous vandalism or attempts to add info in violation of WP:BLP or in rare cases where media attention causes short duration bouts of vandalism.

• 11. When would it be appropriate to speedily delete a page?

• A: If it clearly and unarguably meets any of the speedy deletion criteria.

• 12. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.

• A: Consensus regarding article content on talk pages should be determined by looking at the strengths of the arguments on both sides of a disoute. Ideally all users would agree or at least agree to disagree on content, but often times some users cannot compromise. Consensus does not mean everyone is agrees, but it is also not just a matter of counting heads. In XFD the closing admin must determine the consensus or at the least a rough consensus based on the quality of the arguments in relation to policy disregarding arguments made in bad faith or by sock puppets. In DRV we are looking primarily for strength of arguments, if a XFD was closed counter to policy it should be overturned.

• 13. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: If I had significant history working with the editors or the article in question I would take it to the appropriate notice boards like RFP or 3RR. If it was something that I had little or no history with, I would warn or perhaps block (if already warned) the users for 3RR violations. If we have a serious edit warring situation I would likely protect the page and ask both parties to discuss on the appropriate talk page or if they already have been attempting to do so, point them in the direction of proper dispute resolution procedure. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 14. WP:NBD is often brought up as an important principle for adminship on Wikipedia. Others, however, argue that this guideline is several years old and is not applicable in Wikipedia as it is today. What is your position regarding WP:NBD

• A: Well, admin status is what it is. I don't see it as a particularly big deal, on the other hand I know that some people do.

• 15. Can you think of any situations where a user should be blocked preemptively even though his/her contributions are all of a productive nature?

• A: No.

Is he back? (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Have you read Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, and the pages listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list? The Transhumanist 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A Yes.

• 17. Please explain under what circumstances a non-free image of a building which is still standing may be used on Wikipedia.
  • A. I have to admit my understanding of fair use policy is not exceptionally strong, but as I understand it, the image would have to meet some fair use criteria like being an iconic or historical image or being on an album cover or some such. As far as I can tell non-free images of currently intact buildings cannot be used to illustrate the building itself. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Links for Daniel J. Leivick: Daniel J. Leivick (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Daniel J. Leivick before commenting.

• 14 supports before the nom?! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better than 14 supports before the transclude ;-) Balloonman (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominaton is, IMHO, a given as a support. Pre transclusion comments are, IMHO, disrespectful in that this should be an open forum to the community and not those that have it watchlisted. No issues on this RFA. I'm still bewildered why an early support or a "beat the nom" support is special. A bit like WP:100] etc. - "Oh wow you had 350 supports you must be better than everyone else" or "Oh wow you had 25 supports pre-translsion you must be fab".... In reality the tools one gets are just the same - a thousand editors supporting or twenty four. They're not gold plated for a high level of support or for lots of early bird !voting. Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't get it. How exactly is a high ammount of support votes not an indication of a good candidate?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 17:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   A high amount of support votes is an indication of a good candidate, but it's not a indication of how their performance as an admin will compare with others. For example, it can't be said that someone who fails their first RfA, and then sails through their second, would make a better admin than someone who scrapes through their first RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Beat-the-nom support. Superb candidate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yup. All I needed to do was read your talkpage (and the nom/answers to questions above). You have a very civil and friendly way of dealing with folks that post "zOMGs" to your talkpage. You strike me as someone that is patient, and willing to work with most any editor, gently pointing them the right way, and gently rebuking even the vilest vandal/COI/Spammer. I haven't run across you personally very often (if at all), but based on what I've seen, I believe you'll make a terrific admin. Happy to support, without hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Definitely. I've seen Daniel's work around the 'pedia and have developed a respect for what he does. Malinaccier (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Naerii 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - trustworthy editor. Good answer to Q1. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Good answer to question 1. Really. User wants to put the tools to good use at AfD, and combing through the contributions, I notice the candidate has a sound knowledge of policy and what determines consensus. Second, bravo about CSD. We all make mistakes there, and you shouldn't be blasted for it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak Support weak more because of my laziness than your contributions. (E.g. You appear to be fine, but I would have to do more homework to give you a full support and right now I'm too tired.)Balloonman (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I like the answer to question 1. Otherwise, I see no reason you'd abuse the tools. Spencer^T♦C 00:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: Watch spelling in the future: "I definitely would add myself, admin status should be easily revocable if other editors feel that they are not using there powers appropriately." Note that the part I bolded should be "their" and that proofreading is always important (though I need to continue working on it also). Spencer^T♦C 21:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support More than ready for the mop. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support •Jim62sch•^dissera! 09:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong support Impressive answers, good use of WP:AGF and clearly very competent with things such as WP:AfD and the like. Good luck, happy editing and happy administrating. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 11:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I am pleased with his coolness and calm manner on the talk pages. Think he will do just fine. -JodyB _talk 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. support - sure thing Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - looks good, meets my standards. Has an awfully boring user page for a design major. :-) No concerns. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. No evidence that this editor will go on a rampage with the tools. I hope that they reign in their deletionist tendencies, but that's not enugh for me to oppose. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Seems to actually have participated in the realms they wish to contribute in. Would like to have seen more discussion, but no flags (outside of the WP:CDB bit which I'm sure they've read by now) go up about abusing the tools. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Upon rereading the answer to question six I believe that this user is simply using the term "cool down block" to mean something subtly different than what is specifically disallowed by policy. No other concerns have been brought up, and this is a good user. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Though with the sincere suggestion that the candidate talk with other admins before blocking (or speedy deletion, for that matter) his first few times. (I found it to be very helpful, myself, and still have the original advice saved to my computer for reference : ) - The concerns above (and below) may be legitimate, but (I think) this was within the realm of lack of experience, and which may be enhanced by a bit of "on-the-job-training", and not something that I see as a question of judgement or discernment. (Of course, as always, I hope I'm not proven wrong : ) - jc37 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion certainly accepted. I am definitely planning to get input on my action from more experienced admins as I gain experience. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support. Seen around at the afd's, knows what he's doing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Looks good. the wub "?!" 10:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - Great user with good experience with the project. Hello32020 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - seems to know what he is doing. Good range of contribs. Always use the edit summary! Lradrama 14:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong support -- Per all of his answers! --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support due to no negative interactions any other obvious problems. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support seems like a good candidate to be a admin! Good luck.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Good AfD work.[1] [2] [3] Seems like he knows what he's doing.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 12:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support helped me out numerous times and helped me get used to wikipedia. I'm actually surprised to learn that he is not an admin already. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have reviewed the opposers' rationales and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support: I've seen you around a lot... and I can say that I've never faulted your judgement. seicer | talk | contribs 18:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Good answer to questions one and two. I trust you'll do well with the tools based on previous encounters. Nice nomination statement. Rudget 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I love the answers to the Q1 and Q2. You definitely will do good with the tools. I wish you luck in the future! Cheers, Razorflame 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per answer to question six. That persuades me to ignore the way this RfA was organized. ;) Good candidate anyways. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Sure. DS (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. I find nothing at all wrong with this candidate after spending a day or so sifting through his contributions. I am actually a little bit disturbed at question six, but not at his answer - rather the fact that it had been asked at all. Are we resorting to trick questions to dispose of RfA candidates now? What's next week? "Under what circumstances is it appropriate to murder vandals?" Trusilver 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Opposes unconvincing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Gee, people opposing on a trick question about cool down blocks. Big surprise. Always petty, but especially so here when used to oppose an obviously qualified candidate. GlassCobra 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Solid all-around editor, has a good understanding of how to help improve this project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.-- Barkjon  20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support per respect for nominator, levelheadedness of candidate, and the fact that the cool down block thing is totally played out. Tan | 39 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support for generally good answers and understanding of the project,DGG (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Cool-headed in debates. Will make a great admin. swaq 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Excellent candidate. Spinach Dip 02:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Candidate seems mature and balanced and I think he'll make a good admin. Good answers to the questions, which shows that he'll think things through and use his admin functions responsibly. Is he back? (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Per a general very good impression and understanding of the project, showed consideration in questions. Cenarium (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Uses real name, something I believe every admin should do George The Dragon (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Well argued AFD contributions, should be fine at closing AFD discussions, will not abuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support, would make a great admin. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Great user with a good amount of experience and reliability. Hello32020 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Double vote indented. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, forgot I supported already. Hello32020 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

52. The points raised by opposes are very weak and minor. So support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support On question #6 he described a situation and a remedy, calling it a cool-down block and upsetting several, but the situation described - foul actions, warnings, continued foul actions, followed by a block - is actual practice and completely correct. (I'm amazed at the misreadings.) Seems otherwise reasonable in addition to simply telling it like it is. Shenme (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Activity looks good, and I'm sympathetic for anyone given crap about seeing some value in never saying no to cool down blocks.--Bedford 08:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Great answers to questions. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support, of course. I thought he was already an admin. Time to give him the mop. AVand^talk_contribs 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Though the user admits to be sometimes quick to judge, he also admits that he recognizes it, and makes a point to think before editing/typing/etc. This seems very reasonable. -- Natalya 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Perfect for the job. Jhfireboy Talk 14:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - probably better qualified to be an admin than I am. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Nothing wrong with this user. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak Oppose All admin candidates should know that you never give out a cool down block. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Per the candidate's response, I think it was just a matter of semantics. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Propose Prone to threats - likely to view adminship as a power trip Bancroft EIR (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you provide links to support this allegation? I went through all of the pages you've edited (about 5 or 6 if you include talk pages) and I couldn't find any place where you and the candidate had any interaction. I did see a number of places where you've been involved with edit warring and other questionable edits, but nothing related to this candidate.)Balloonman (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Very weak oppose - Per the candidate's answer to the question about cool down blocks. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   His answer to the question is actually better than the canned "cool down blocks should never be used" since it shows he understands the policy and what it actually means. Opposing based on that is not a good idea. - Bobet 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Exactly. I had to deal with the same garbage on my own RfA. Besides, if you get rid of the fiction of the Proper Noun, cooldown blocks ... or rather, blocks facilitating cooldown [though not necessarily issued in that name] .... are in reality the most popular block reasons issued to established editors. The only thing that edit to the policy page does is scare people into not calling 'em "Cool Down Blocks". So Daniel, just don't call 'em Cooldown Blocks and you'll avoid violating this new wiki taboo. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Right. I support him very strongly for actually knowing what we do and standing up for it against the stereotyped response. That's the main reason we actually block, though we typically call it "violation of 3RR," or "to prevent further conflict" or some similar evasion. Maybe we should change the wording of the policy page. DGG (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong oppose--Eatthefood43 (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)— Eatthefood43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

   SPA vote indented. --Deskana (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Kind of wary of the editor's knowledge over some guidelines that I believe all admins should know. Seems to be a good editor and understand other workings of Wikipedia, so for now I'll remain neutral. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Seems soft on socks in #4. Unclear on cooldowns in #6, NPA is a policy that violations of should be blocked to stop further NPA. #11 is a bit unclear to me. But since he's looking to mainly do AFD, I'm still a bit torn. MBisanz ^talk 06:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral User talk interaction is predominantly templates, and I as yet do not have a good understanding of how this editor would react in difficult situations with access to the bit, so I will demur for the time being. Perhaps I'll form a better opinion with more investigation. -- Avi (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Pending answer to Stifle's excellent question. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:29, May 1, 2008

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.