Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jfgsloeditor (talk | contribs) at 13:37, 7 November 2012 (→‎Support: me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Northamerica1000

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (22/3/0); Scheduled to end 23:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, it is my pleasure to nominate Northamerica1000 for administrator. He has been a part of this community for nearly a year-and-a-half, during which time he has amassed almost 100,000 edits. He has been entrusted with autopatrolled status, and he is also a file mover, reviewer, and rollbacker. A part of multiple science-related WikiProjects, Northamerica1000 fight vandalism and participates in articles for creation. He does good work here and granting him the mop will only increase his efficiency. With all the talk about the need to promote more admins and with the concern that RfA is dying, I ask you why, if adminship is indeed no big deal, should we not give this editor the mop? AutomaticStrikeout 01:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination for adminship, and thank you. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are a great deal of avenues and choices in administrative work on Wikipedia. Foremostly, I feel that I have sound experience in contributing to the encyclopedia to assist in the administration of Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and consensus in an egalitarian and equitable manner. Being an administrator significantly increases one's responsibility on Wikipedia, and I would utilize the administrative tools in a productive, yet judicious and discerning manner. Particular interests include file organization and management, WikiProjects, collaborations, portals and featured portal designation, editor retention, Articles for creation, Articles for deletion and AfD discussions, the Teahouse, welcoming users, countering vandalism, making productive contributions to discussions, new page patrolling, copy editing, simply improving the encyclopedia and several other avenues. These interests being realized in administration have many potential forms. For example, I've made significant contributions to AfD and have performed several non-administrator AfD closures. A few closure examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Alliance for Life, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blood Confession and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Do It (Niké).
The process of discussion and consensus on Wikipedia is intriguing and ultimately, productive. The world is comprised of many people with divergent cultural backgrounds, ideation, knowledge, beliefs and values, and the manner in which this all eventually and ultimately meshes on Wikipedia in the form of productive articles and consensus is awesome. I'm interested in further contributing to discussions and performing consensus-based discussion resolutions and closures, including those at the administrators noticeboards such as Requests for closure and ANI. Additonal interests include countering vandalism in its many forms, utilizing page protection when necessary, helping out with updating content changes for the main page, various other deletion discussions (i.e. deletion review, Templates for discussion, etc.), article/file deletion and undeletion (the latter when warranted, i.e. Userfication), and additional areas. All of this would involve the cautious, rather than hasty, use of the tools from the start, per the learning curve for the use of any new tools on Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The best contributions are those that improve the encyclopedia for the viewing public, further the goals of the project and in the process also lend to the acquistion of personal knowledge and learning during the process of article improvement. Regarding the notion of my “best” contributions, I tend to favor article improvements and expansions that involve significant research and thoughtful copy editing. A significant part of the fun of Wikipedia is finding articles about subjects and areas of interest, performing research to locate various reliable sources, particularly empirical research sources when available, and then copy editing articles to improve their content, sourcing and presentation. The process of researching and copy editing is quite conducive to the acquisition of personal knowledge, and in the process the encyclopedia is also improved. In this manner, one can learn about new topics and expand their knowledge of already-known ones while also concurrently improving the encyclopedia. This equates to a win-win situation for both the editor and the reader. For people's perusal, I maintain a list of some of my contributions at User:Northamerica1000/Contributions.
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: Active editors will inevitably have occasional conflicts with other editors, and the most important thing to do when this occurs is to first consider the other person's viewpoint. From here, calm, rational discussion between those in disagreement can often lead to resolution or compromise. In some instances, a person may be in error, and through the process of discussion the error is corrected. Other times, people may have philosophical differences about an article, topic or matter and not ultimately reach a resolution, but compromise may be reached. If compromise isn't attained, sometimes editors may have to “agree to disagree.” These processes and others also often lend to the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.
I personally don't become stressed from disagreements and their discussion, but I'm aware that others may. Tension and stress can interfere with cognition, which can be transferred in the form of negatively-affecting discussions. Conversely, calmness tends to lend to more productive discussions. It's important to encourage calm interaction. If a user is becoming overtly stressed out or even hostile, encouraging them to “take a step back” and take a break from the discussion often counters these matters. Afterward, the subsequent discussion often becomes more engaging and productive.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Gwickwire
4. If given the mop, will you be subject to recall? If not, why not?
A: I'd definitely give it consideration. Doing so would entail creating parameters for oneself and then volunteering to de-sysop if one's own parameters are not met. A concern, though, is that at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall it is stated, "The status of the approach on this page is currently unclear." (et al.) Further clarification of the procedures, methods of judgment and processes of implementation would increase the likelihood of my adherence to this option. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. If you saw a new editor placing admin templates on his/her userpage, or otherwise claiming to be an administrator when they clearly arent, what actions, if any, would you take? What if it was a more established user?
A: After first checking to ensure that the person is not an administrator, for example, by performing a check at Special:ListUsers/sysop, I would remove any erroneously-placed admin templates if present along with an edit summary explaining their removal and message them about the matter. In the case of a template simply being mistakenly placed, as could occur in a copy/paste error, basic discussion could resolve the matter. In the event of ongoing false claims, a sterner warning would be appropriate along with a request that the erroneous information be struck from their posts. Additionally, in the event of the latter, the user would also be warned that continued false representation can result in blocks for deliberately introducing factual errors, up to and including being blocked indefinitely if the behavior persists. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. If you were reviewing someone's request for permissions, and you saw that they had been blocked in the past, how would you go about determining the outcome of their request? Would the amount of time be important, or just their contributions since the block(s)?
A: The foremost considerations in this matter would be the reason and circumstances for why the block was enacted, whether or not this was the person's first block or if they have been blocked multiple times, and if so what for (for simliar or for different matters), and the timeframe of the block in the event that there has been more than one. If a person was previously blocked for a violation similar to the very permission they are requesting, this would have to be taken into consideration. For example, in an instance where a user who requests autopatrolled permission has been blocked for creating faulty, unreferenced, spam-like articles in the far past, but has since demonstrated significant changes in behavior and is following guidelines and policies, less weight would be applicable regarding the block and the outcome of a request for permission would be primarily based upon the efficacy of the request relative to the the requesters experience and abilities, along with the degree of congruence relative to the guidelines for autopatrolled permission. Conversely, if the person recently made such request shortly after a related block for said example, the request would likely be denied with advice to make said request in the future after demonstrating compliance with policies and guidelines. The amount of time that has occurred and the number of contributions an editor has made after a block can be subjective. Per the example above, if a user was blocked in the far past and has made few or no edits in the time between the block and the request, the gravitas of the block would be higher. Conversely, in a situation where a user who has performed many edits and has not made subsequent violations related to the rationale for the block, the distant block would have less gravitas. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Mtking
7. Given that your first 500 edits were done in less than 10 days, it is reasonable to conclude that you may have edited WP before opening this account, can you please disclose any other accounts you have edited with or confirm that ArbCom are aware of them and ask someone from ArbCom to attest to that.
A: The first account I created on Wikipedia was User:Unitedstates1000, but I decided to change my user name. The pages for this initial, short-term account redirect to my current user pages. My contributions under the initial account can be viewed here. Prior to that I made occasional edits to Wikipedia under IP addresses while traveling. It's unclear why the arbitration committee would need to be aware of my initial User:Unitedstates1000 account, because there is no dispute inherent regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom is only relevant if, for example you account was in your real name and you had decided to stop using it for reasons of privacy and therfore did not wish to disclose your real name.
I am still a bit confused of over the change from account to another one, you stopped editing with Unitedstates1000 and six minutes later you created this one, then continued to edit in the subject area of Hotels, yet you took to last month before you linked the two accounts. That first account had been in use for less than a month and made over 1000 edits is that correct ? Mtking (edits) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first account was in use for less than a month and a total of 1,119 edits were performed under it. I created the new account simply because I liked my current account name more than the prior one. I'd forgotten about the former, short-term account and upon reviewing some of my past edits, saw it in an article's revision history. From there, I then linked the old account user pages to redirect to my current ones. Under the former account, 1,119 edits were performed and the first edit occurred on May 12, 2011 (see Edit Counter), and the last edit was performed on June 8, 2011 (see User contributions). Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I simply decided to begin editing under a new user name and abandoned the old account, because I preferred the new name compared to the former. I also requested deletion of the old account simply because it isn't being used whatsoever, but the request was denied (See this diff page and scroll down to the end to view the full discussion.) Since the pages couldn't be deleted, I redirected them to my current user pages. Hopefully this helps to significantly clarify this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Since the toolserver resource cant help (due to your contribution count being so large) to to assess your contributions in some non-content creation areas of WP for example (but not limited to) in areas such as Speedy Deletion (perhaps with examples where you have added or removed CSD tags) or help in fighting vandals etc and Can you please outline the work you have done in the areas of WP that require the administration, such as AIV
A: As an example of countering vandalism, I've performed over 1,000 edits using STiki (see User:Northamerica1000/Awards). In the process, I've learned about the procedures for countering vandalism such as warning levels and types of user notifications. These skills would be transferrable toward contributing at AIV. Some areas of my non-content contributions include AfD, AfC and Prods. Some of my contributions at AfD include:
Additionally, here's an MfD example: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Khitan. Some of my AfC contributions can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive/Northamerica1000. My prod contributions are mostly prod tag removals and improvement of prodded articles, and some examples include [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from BarkingFish
9. Do you, personally, feel that you deserve to be an administrator on this project, and if so, what makes you more deserving than other candidates with more experience than yourself, who have lost out at this place? If you don't feel you deserve it, what qualities do you feel you will add to the admin base on this project?
A: Rather than deserving, I feel qualified and competent per my experience and abilities. Regarding comparisons to other editors who have been declined, their reasons for being declined would be relative to their own contributions to the encyclopedia. Some of my personal qualities that would contribute to the administrative base of Wikipedia include a fair-minded, rational approach, respect of other's opinions and viewpoints and my ability to multitask. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Bagumba
10. In Q1, you mentioned your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blood Confession. Can you discuss your decision to perform the close in relation to "clear keep outcomes" described in the essay Wikipedia:Non-admin closure?
A: The "Clear keep outcomes" section of the essay is a suggested procedure from an essay. I generally refer to the Non-administrators closing discussions section at Wikipedia:Deletion process because this is a guideline page and has more weight compared to an essay. Furthermore, it is denoted at the top of the essay that it is "intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Deletion process page, which should be deferred to in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." That said, ultimately, the outcome of the discussion favored article retention based upon the overall strength of the arguments in the discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. What are your feelings on supervotes?
A: Supervotes should not be performed because this style of discussion closure typically fails to take consensus within discussions into consideration. Furthermore, supervotes typically lend undue weight to the opinion of the closer. Discussion closures should be based upon consensus and the weight of the various arguments within discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Plutonium27
12 Your answer to Q2 refers us here [6] re your contributions to articles. There you have listed the article Weight phobia under the title of your "Articles Created". Its history shows that you did not create this article and have made just one edit there: three months after it was created from a redirect (which you had not been involved with, nor had you edited the original article) you added a portal link. A substantial contribution early on in an article's history can conceivably be confused with its creation - but one minor edit? A listing muddle between "articles created" and "articles edited" (however slightly) is also possible. But given the info revealed in Q7, could there have been other "initial, short-term account(s)" perhaps forgotten in the mists of time? See, I'm also intrigued as to how, back in July 2011 and also soon after you started here, that just two and a half hours after you created it and less than an hour after your last (for the time being) edit there, User: Neutrality took over writing of Angolan cuisine: [7] and that same morning sent it off for a (failed) DYK: [8] (which was achieved a week later: [9]). I have looked at the article's and Neutrality's and your talk pages: none show any communication about this coincidental interest timing. Not a word about "Hey - that article you started 2 hours ago? I've just added heaps and sent it for a DYK! Well done us!" Not a word about this article between you, at all, ever. I would be interested to know your method of article-writing collaboration there. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: It appears that the Weight phobia link was added in error because it at one time appeared in an articles created summary, from which I copied and pasted it to the my contributions list*. I've removed the entry from the list. Regarding previous account usage, the User:Unitedstates1000 account is the sole one. Regarding the lack of a query in discussing the Angolan cuisine article, it appears that I simply moved on to other editing matters at the time** and didn't consider the option of seeking collaboration for the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* (Addendum: See this diff page and the Revision history for the Weight phobia article, in which the first entry has my edit summary. This is why it was listed in an articles created summary.) Northamerica1000(talk) 08:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
** (Addendum: during the time of 25 July 2011; see Revision history.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Townlake
13. Why does your User talk page have so many graphics at the top? Do you believe this content facilitates communication with other editors? And do you maintain talk page archives? (I can't find them on that page.)
A: I utliize my User talk page to convey various topics because it seems that most users go directly to this page, rather than to the User page. Graphics add visual appeal to pages, and can also be used to convey interests, along with humor. For example, the WikiProject Environment banner advertisement on the page may generate interest in that project, and the Wikimedia Commons banner ad serves to promote Commons. These likely don't facilitate significant editor communication, although they may in some instances. I will be adding a talk page archive to my User talk page shortly. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Worm That Turned
14. As a follow on from question 12, I had a look at Quiche, an article you state you have significantly contributed to. After merging information from French Quiche, your work was exclusively this set of edits followed a while later by this set. After the second set, you added it to your list [10]. I'm curious to ask what you feel makes a contribution "significant"?
A: I formulated the list by reviewing my contribution history, and upon checking out the Quiche article, I also decided to make a few more changes to it. The contributions are significant because they involved merging information from the French Quiche lorraine article to the Quiche article (see also: Talk:French Quiche lorraine), layout improvements, style improvements, additional organization, research to find and then add additional sources to the article and the addition of entries to the further reading section, all of which take time and energy. In this manner, I also consider the time and energy invested in articles when adding articles to the Significant contributions section of my contributions list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. As nom. AutomaticStrikeout 23:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per your articles for creation, articles for deletion, other admin are work, current user-rights, edit summary usage, -editing and basic main-space article work. Will be a great editor with the tools and I agree with the nominator, this user obviously deserves the mop. TBrandley 03:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support based on interaction at articles for deletion, where we often seem to be on opposite sides of an issue, but civil, sane, source-based and policy-based. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Hard-working, level headed editor. I know this editor from many overlapping areas of content. In particular, on one controversial article we were both watchlisting, I didn't always agree with Northamerica1000, but they were invariably courteous and calm, and focused only on improving the article. I totally believe they can be trusted with the tools and will use them to improve the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Trusted user no reason not to give them the bit. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I have absolutely no concerns at this time. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support no issues. --Rschen7754 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've seen this candidate around a fair amount and I have no concerns about his ability to delete the main page and block me share the admin backlog burden. BencherliteTalk 01:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Based on the answer to my question, in which Northamerica1000 actually says he doesn't deserve to be an admin, that's good enough for me to move to support - clearly not after power, and disagrees with his nominator. Sweet :) FishBarking? 02:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Dedicated editor; personal traits and edit history all clear positives. dci | TALK 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Well-rounded, solid candidate. SpencerT♦C 02:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - no issues, great history of edits. Vacation9 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Excellent Contributions. I was surprised to see this RfA. I thought you were already an admin. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support — Absolutely. An excellent article writer with experience in maintenance areas, demonstrates an in-depth understanding of policy, and is forthright in his responses to some pretty hefty accusations. I feel very confident that we would be making the right decision in trusting Northamerica1000 with the sysop bit. Kurtis (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I've not interacted much with him but I have certainly came across his work many times. I was impressed by work especially on AfDs. Overall looks nice and handsome to me. TheSpecialUser TSU 08:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I'm mildly disturbed that the chap doesn't appear to sleep - analysing his edits and there is no hour where he hasn't made at least 2400 edits! But I'm happy he's willing to stand up for himself, he is clearly here to help out the encyclopedia and appears to have a decent temperment. I've seen areas for improvement, but I'm happy to support this user. WormTT(talk) 09:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. A fine candidate. Good luck. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Seems competant, I've encountered them around and never had a problem, examination of their history shows nothing that alarms me. WilyD 11:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support He seems to specialise in food topics which can be surprisingly controversial (yogurt, hummus, pizza cheese, &c.). He seems to handle such work with good grace and little drama. Warden (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Despite the fact that many (most?) of our interactions have been disagreements, I have always respected Northamerica1000's reasoning and arguments. He's rational, level-headed and doesn't get stressed under pressure, plus he knows policy and can apply it. Very clueful, no concerns, give him a mop. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per the above comments from over twenty fellow editors! --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Might as well keep things balanced. I feel at this time we don't need anymore administrators on this project - we're going to wind up with too many chiefs and not enough indians. Sorry. FishBarking? 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Moved to Support, based on answer to my question above - disagrees with his own nominator, that's good enough for me :) FishBarking? 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been boldly moved to the talk page so that irrelevant conversations about RfA in general don't derail this individual RfA. Please continue the conversation there. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 00:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Something does not just feel right with the answers to my question 7 and Plutonium27's question 12. As it appears to me you open a WP account make 1,119 edits in less than 4 weeks, then stop editing open a new one 6 minutes later, and then wait 15 months to link the account and do so 6 weeks before starting a RfA. This coupled with the editing at Angolan cuisine, the assertion that " it's likely that I simply moved on to other editing matters at the time and didn't consider the option of seeking collaboration for the article" seams week when you look article history as you came back to the article 8 days later. Mtking (edits) 06:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I did not start this RfA, User:AutomaticStrikeout did after asking me on my User talk page if I was interested in the prospect (See User talk:Northamerica1000#RfA?). Also, I've added addendums to questions #7 and #12 in hopes to better clarify my answers. Hope this helps out. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Something just doesn't smell right about the answer to Q12. Malleus Fatuorum 06:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be great if you provide some solid evidence to substantiate what you smell wrong. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus is topic-banned by Arbcom and "may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA." There is a grey area as to whether this includes a ban on him answering comments such as this in an RFA, or whether it only bans discussions about RFA. In any case, for understandable reasons, MF has previously indicated on his talk page that it is safer for him not to reply in such circumstances. BencherliteTalk 08:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that means he's effectively incapable of participating on RFA, as he can't participate in any subsequent discussions in good faith. Hence stricken.--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The arbcom restriction specifically allows the editor to place his judgement on the page. Restored, please let's just move on from here. WormTT(talk) 10:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per his stances in the myriad of AfDs we've both participated in. He seems unwilling to acknowledge close criteria other than GNG, and willing to source-dump into an AfD content that belongs on the article's talk page or in the article itself. I believe him to be too overly inclusionist to be level-headed in closing AfDs. The change in accounts is also a concern, as is the fact that he hasn't been on Wikipedia with this account for two years yet pbp 07:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Mtking and Malleus. Answers to Q7 and Q12 don't ring true. While adminship is for life I need to be fully confident in a candidate before I can support, and I'm afraid I'm not able to support here. Sorry. I could revisit this vote if the answers are explained further. Begoon talk 08:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Please note that I've added an addendum with a link to better qualify my answer to Question #7, and have added additional links to a diff page and Revision history pages to better-qualify my answers in Question #12. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. I'm striking this oppose because, after more thought, my concerns are outweighed by the good work you have done on this account. I'm a suspicious old thing at heart, and I tend to see "red lights" when new editors are as accomplished as you appear to have been from the start - but in the long run what matters is what you are doing now, and have been doing for quite some time, and I can't fault that. I cannot, in all conscience, say that I am concerned you will abuse the tools or that you are not experienced enough, and that's really all that should lead me to register opposition. Sorry for putting you "on the spot" because of my doubtful nature. Begoon talk 12:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000&oldid=521822857"