Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WODUP

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

WODUP[edit]

Final (65/1/1); Originally scheduled to end 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (apples) 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WODUP (talk · contribs) - I've been here for about a year and active since last October. I nominate myself for adminship so that I may improve the encyclopedia. I won't make things worse. :) WODUP 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I'm sure I'd do quite a bit at some point or another, though I'd likely start with intervening against vandalism, creating accounts for other users, and reviewing speedy deletion candidates.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best encyclopedia writing is at Bayside High School (Clearwater, Florida) where I started out knowing only the name and location of the school and wrote the article using only sources I found online. I've also done a good job at reverting, warning, and reporting vandals, and helping other users at the help desk or in CAT:HELPME.
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: There are a couple little things in my talk page archives (1, 2, 3, 4), but this discussion is what caused me the most stress so far. I didn't reply immediately after reading the messages; I took some time to cool down and then wrote my replies. Should conflicts arise, I'm likely to continue to be civil, assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and try to be helpful.
Optional questions from Daniel
I'd like to think that these are all tough questions, and interestingly many don't actually have a "correct" answer. I'm more interested in seeing what your opinion is about the situations, and how you reached/justified that opinion. Apologies for my over-reaching curiosity :) Daniel 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. When you are asked to block a malfunctioning bot, you check its' userpage and read that it operates from the Toolserver. What, if any, special precautions do you need when executing a block on the bot account?
A: I'd disable the autoblock so other bots on the Toolserver aren't affected. WODUP 06:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. In your opinion, are principles created by the Arbitration Committee binding on Wikipedians and Wikipedia generally, or only the parties to that case? Namely, in the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 19#Julia Earl about the Arbitration Committee's role in that review discussion, in your opinion which opinion is correct and how should it affect the closing of the discussion (remembering that administrators are not required to enforce rulings, however are required not to stop those who do)?
A: Principles may not be binding, but likely will be. In this case, I believe that this principle applies and that if this case continued to ArbCom, that principle would be repeated for this case. I believe that the article failed WP:BLP1E and should have been deleted as a BLP violation. WODUP 06:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. In your opinion, do administrators as a group have a particular role in the dispute resolution process? Why or why not?
A: A slight role: anyone can help in the dispute resolution process, but only administrators can delete, restore, view deleted pages, etc., which may be necessary in some disputes. Yes, but not beyond what may be required of their technical abilities. WODUP 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. An editor requests that you undelete Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Urartu, which was speedy-deleted by now-retired administrator Essjay. Their request is, "Can you please undelete the page so I can use it in a user conduct RfC as evidence. I have to ask you because Essjay has retired from editing." In your opinion, what is the best course of action, and therefore what is your response/reaction to the request on your talk page?
A: That seems like a polite and reasonable request. It was a long time ago, but the user may want to demonstrate a long history of inappropriate conduct. I'd probably restore it for a short while if it's not a copyright violation, libel, personal information, or a BLP violation. WODUP 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...which can't be done (...prevent such communications being used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) arbitration and user conduct requests for comment). I got this one wrong, but I learned something today. WODUP 15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Can an AfD be closed as "transwiki to Wikinews"? If yes, in your opinion should we be closing more discussions that way, to promote WP:NOT#NEWS?
A: No. Wikinews is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license with the work attributed to "Wikinews"; it's incompatible with the GFDL. WODUP 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Miranda
9. Two people violate the WP:3RR rule on a living person, by inserting and deleting unsourced information about a subject being a controversial spy for the British/UK government. You block each person for 1 week for violating WP:3RR, but later do some research on the subject and find out that ONE of them is correct, but that person forgets to insert the information properly (i.e. citations). What do you do?
A: I'm not sure why I would block both editors when only one is adding unsourced controversial information to BLPs, and I have to assume that being a controversial spy is what is controversial, so here goes.
  • If the user who asserts that the subject is not a spy is right, unblock them and apologize for wrongfully blocking them because they were removing unsourced controversial information, which is an allowed exception to 3RR.
  • If the user who asserts that the subject is a spy is right, still unblock the user who asserts that the subject is not a spy because they were removing unsourced controversial information, and let them know that it's now properly sourced. If the user who asserts that the subject is a spy omitted the citation as an honest but rare mistake, unblock them but remind them to always cite their sources. If they were nasty or have a history of adding unsourced information to BLPs, let them wait out their block. WODUP 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. If someone were accused of being a sock, even if the 2 usernames never edited in the same articles, would you block them indefinitely? If not, would you unblock someone blocked under the same circumstance (orginally block on the accusation of being a sock even if the 2 never edited the same article?). (FYI, there are a number of scenarios where one could be accused of being a sock such as being from the same small country, etc.)Haveaquestion 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haveaquestion appears to be a single purpose account (12 edits, none to mainspace, most to RfAs). Majorly (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this user disrupting the process? The sock drawer and it's management is big issue right now. --Rocksanddirt 01:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Whether or not I would block and unblock depends on the evidence of each case, not simply accusations of sockpuppetry and unblock requests. If the only evidence is that a user uses two separate accounts, no, that doesn't warrant a block, and if already blocked, they should be unblocked by the admin who blocked them (they may know something I don't, after all). If there's more to it, such as violating anything listed at WP:SOCK#Forbidden uses of sock puppets, then yes, block; no, don't unblock. WODUP 12:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from --Rocksanddirt 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. - How much time do you expect to spend on adminstrative tasks vs. article tasks?
A: I don't know yet. Unless I'm involved in something (like right now, I'm involved in this RfA), I don't really know what I'll be doing on each wikisession until I sit down and see what strikes my fancy. WODUP 12:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. - How much dispute resolution do you work with now and do you expect an increase?
A: I don't have any experience in dispute resolution on Wikipedia right now. I haven't made the decision not to help there, so I might do so in the future, but I don't have any immediate plans to start. WODUP 12:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question, from – Chacor 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. This will be a rather tricky question, and I understand if you choose not to answer it. What are your feelings on justen's comment to my oppose? Cheers.
A: Justen's comments suggest that he didn't see that you diferentiate between intentional abuse and possibly overzealous misuse. WODUP 01:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • (Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers)I am previously unfamiliar with WODUP, and am afraid that I only have time for a cursory examination of WODUP's edits, so my comments should only be considered in that light. Regarding his contributions and interactions with other editors: Reading through WODUP's talk page, talk page archives, I get the impression that he is willing to engage in discussion, and that he is rather calm and civil. I like his responses to Daniel's questions. My impression is that WODUP is well-reasoned and able to learn quickly. Additionally, I like his civil response to Chacor's oppose below.
  • Examining his contributions, I noticed that WODUP does not have many content edits, and has many vandalism reversion edits. Others may oppose based on these premises, but they (the premises) do not concern me. Vandal fighters are sometimes quick to action; the story WODUP related to Chacor indicates that WODUP too may be quick to action. Reactionary editors and administrators are concerning, and I hope that WODUP will not react too quickly to good-faith efforts of newbies. WODUP, however, appears to be rather open to discussion, and I think that he would be open to discussion even in the case of admin actions.
  • Also, Coredesat noted below that the self-nom was somewhat weak. I agree, but I don't generally consider this when considering whether an editor would make a good administrator. In the case of this RfA, I remain unconcerned.
  • In summary: I like WODUP's interaction with other editors, his willingness to discuss, and his civil manner; I am not concerned about lack of content edits, a weak self-nom, or a perceived reactionary attitude. I would advise WODUP, however, to be kind to newbies (real newbies, not new accounts of recurring vandals or trolls). I would also advise that WODUP's account be made sysop. --Iamunknown 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Hell yes! The only RfA running though... :P Giggy Talk 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Quick look through the contributions history didn't turn up anything disconcerting. I've yet to run in to this editor before but they seem to be genuinely concerned with helping out. Looks good enough to me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I don't see any problems with this editor using the admin tools. Active in the main spaces, is polite and communicates well. (aeropagitica) 05:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I was wondering why this user wasn't an admin. He is very helpful and civil. Good contributions, nothing to be concerned about. i said 05:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Trustworthy user, great editor. Good luck! Dfrg.m$c 06:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mainspace edits a little low but this editor is trustworthy and will not abuse the tools being entrusted so I support. --Hdt83 Chat 07:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I'm surprised that this is the only RFA at the time. Heck yea! Politics rule 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No major reasons to oppose.--†Sir James Paul† 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Trustworthy, with good communication. Good luck! CattleGirl talk 08:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support - It was going to be a neutral, as though seems like a good, trustworthy candidate, answer to question one was, in my opinion, very, very weak. Questions 4-8 certainly redemed him, though - he knows what he's doing ;) TheIslander 09:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support On balance. Per User:TheIslander you certainly redeemed yourself with the answers to the optional questions. Your contribution history looks good, and no civility issues here. Fundamentally I see no reason not to trust this candidate with interpretations of policy or use of the admin buttons. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  09:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I don't have any problems with WODUP using the admin tools. James086Talk | Email 10:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, good user. - Zeibura (Talk) 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Trustworthy user, and good answers to questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chill doubt (talk • contribs) 10:40, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
  15. Support I think the answers to Daniel's question demonstrates that he has grasped all the nuisances of being an admin. Therefore I support --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. See no deal-breakers, but a lot of experience and good faith. —AldeBaer 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Nothing to suggest a problem here. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. - Answers to Daniel's questions are the clincher for me. Good, solid edit reputation. Very little BITEiness. Works for me :) - Alison ☺ 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Decent record and good answers to Daniel's questions (4-8). It should be noted that the answer to question #7 is problematic, but I doubt WODUP would be alone in amongst present admins in making the error. WODUP- if you wish to revise that answer, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation. WjBscribe 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support and your guidance. WODUP 15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Candidate seems to know what they're doing, or where to look it up. I highly doubt they will misuse the mop --lucid 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support good user. Acalamari 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - The concern raised by the sole opposer really doesn't worry me at all (those account creations were clearly explained). As to the answer to q7, I have been an admin for 4 months, and I had no idea that there were special rules about undeleting mediation pages. Unless the candidate plans to work in mediation, there's no reason why s/he should know that. WaltonOne 17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. WODUP GETS MY FULL SUPPORT - --Cometstyles 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, knows what he's doing, and the discussion linked in question #3 quite impressed me. I actually thought you already were an admin. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support without any reservations. Your self nom, while very bare bones, really sums up why we give adminship in the first place. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Track appears good. Harlowraman 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No problems here, oh by the way, thanks for telling me about the ACC, I'll start participating! Cheers, JetLover (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Quality answers. Extremely strong support. Daniel 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support as per Daniel, very good answers to the questions (apart from Q1, which seems a bit ... "weak"). No reason to suggest this editor would abuse the tools. ELIMINATORJR 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, per Cometstyles :D Majorly (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per Majorly. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support No major concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per above. Bearian 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per interaction on my talk page: [1] and [2]. As you can see, he came off as friendly and helpful, so I wish him the best of luck in this RfA. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Weak answers to questions 1 and 2 were more than made up for by answers to the very difficult questions from Daniel (I couldn't have answered all of those). Also, the link to the dispute re: deletion of the space food article showed admirable patience, civility, and clarity of thought. Finally, I'm going to support for the same reason Chacor opposes -- I really appreciate an editor who so boldly takes action to prevent disruption. --Ginkgo100talk 03:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Daniel's questions were handled very well. --Haemo 06:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Jmlk17 07:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Although the editor seems a little weak on encyclopedia building, those edits I reviewed were overwhelmingly useful, and the thoughtful answers to optional questions suggest s/he has a strong understanding of policy. Espresso Addict 09:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support good contributions to content and process. Recurring dreams 09:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Will not abuse the tools, and I liked his civil response to Chacor's oppose. Good luck! Neranei (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - good job with Daniel's tough questions, too. - Philippe | Talk 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Unlikely to abuse the tools, should be a good administrator. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Excellent response, unlikely to abuse tools. Marlith T/C 03:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per above. Seen WODUP around doing wonderful work. PeaceNT 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weak support Just a brief browse through this user's contributions confirms that WODUP will make good use of the buttons - although by seeming lack of effort in nomination process this is a bit putting-off --Ben 12:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak Support - despite the thoroughly unremarkable answers to the questions, and the fact that the article he mentions as his greatest contribution is equally unremarkable, the Wikipedia edit-count, and the areas that those edits have been concentrated makes me believe that the user will handle the tools very well. But it's only a weak support and is far from the best RfA I have seen. Lradrama 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. zOMG THE DAY HAS COME Support – I've been waiting for this page to be created for far too long! Give him the mop! (P.S. I'm a bit surprised Kmweber hasn't showed up with the "prima facie" junk yet). –Animum 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I thought I already supported. Dag nabbit. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. GL. –sebi 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Garion96 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Ding dong. Special delivery from FedEx, it's a new mop! Wikipediarules2221 01:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support—nothing of concern turns up in contributions. --Paul Erik 03:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Good Wikipedian, good answers, good potential for being admin! gidonb 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Thought he was one already. Melsaran (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - per Hdt83. Give him the mop! Hirohisat's.Sockpuppet 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, politeness and good communication skills are key to me, so yes. Shinealight2007 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  58. Support, seen this user buzzing around the help desks and suchlike, and always comes across as pleasant and knowlegeable. Definitely capable. Neil ム 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Trustworthy. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - no doubt. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - adequate answer to my raised question. Miranda 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support! —Crazytales (t.) 03:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. WODUP's always been patient, and, polite, from what I've seen... Strong Support! --SXT4 10:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Singopo 00:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, could you please explain your user creation log? Specifically, "# 01:36, July 9, 2007 WODUP (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Badlydrawnjeff (Talk | contribs)" and "# 11:12, April 19, 2007 WODUP (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Steptrip (Talk | contribs)"? – Chacor 06:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the accounts I create are for users at WP:ACC. I created those two to prevent impersonation and confusion from someone else using the names after they changed their usernames. I e-mailed Bdj and Animum to with the passwords to their new doppelganger accounts. WODUP 06:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious - did you ask them before creating the accounts? – Chacor 07:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't. WODUP 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate it, then, that you did it in good faith, but some times I think it's still better to ask before doing something so... (I wouldn't say "controversial" here, but you get the drift). Changed to weak oppose. – Chacor 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinion, but must ask: do you think he'll abuse the tools because he created two accounts designed to prevent impersonation? Giggy Talk 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I think he'll abuse the tools because he created these accounts? No. But the opportunity for misuse, however slim, seems to be there given that he didn't ask before doing what he did. "Do first, ask questions later" is a rather unimpressive way to leave a first impression, and nothing's to say (not that it will happen, but it might) that after he gets the admin tools he won't "do first, ask later", which can be rather bad for an admin. – Chacor 10:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you ask before doing what you did that got you desysopped last year? —AldeBaer 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Don't make argumentative cheap shots like that, please. Argue the argument, not the person. Sean William @ 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, although I personally think it's relevant to know where an argument is coming from to be able to judge its merits. —AldeBaer 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Do first, ask questions later" isn't really appropriate here, Chacor. Before blocking an account, or protecting an article, and so forth, of course, having all the facts is important. Creating two doppelgängers, to prevent any misuse, is really no big deal (an even bigger no big deal than adminship). Finally, asserting that "the opportunity to 'misuse'" is there is just not accurate or fair, and completely ignores WP:AGF. He took the extra step of registering the accounts while logged in, so that they did show up in his userlog. Of course, you are always entitled to !vote how you see fit, but is an oppose, even a weak oppose, really warranted for such an absolutely harmless attempt to do good?  :(   justen   07:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not appreciate this. Please don't try to sway me, I think that he should have done it only after asking, and that's my opinion. Furthermore, you've managed to squeeze a shot in that I've somehow violated WP:AGF when I already noted I appreciate he did it in good faith. This is not appreciated one bit. – Chacor 09:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you don't appreciate my concern with your !vote, but it is what it is. In my mind, WP:AGF and alleging the "opportunity for misuse, however slim" are just not compatible in the instance in which you've brought up here. I'm sorry you feel differently, and I wish you didn't, otherwise I wouldn't have spoken up. But, I will attempt to "sway" you no further.   justen   09:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me attempt to explicate. WODUP either (1) created those accounts after they were renamed (my case), or (2) created them as per a request on WP:ACC. I don't think there is any merit to this oppose at all. In fact, he helped the encyclopedia by either creating an account or preventing impersonation of another. –Animum 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chacor, so you see the creation of those accounts as a strong indicator that he is likely to abuse his admin tools? I don't think so. Remember, you don't !vote oppose because you don't like the candidate, but because you don't trust them with the tools. Melsaran (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Chacor said that he thinks that I will not, in bad faith, abuse the tools, but that I may somehow misuse the tools (I assume that he means unintentionally, but possibly overzealously). It's a weak oppose and even he says that the username doppelganger thing is relatively insignificant. His opinion will be read and appropriately weighed by the bureaucrat who closes this. Please don't challenge it anymore. Doing so has the potential to escalate this with little or no benefit. Thank you. WODUP 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral pending response to Chacor's oppose and Daniel's questions, and due to somewhat weak self-nom and answers to questions. --Coredesat 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what part of his answers to the questions do you consider weak? They look excellent to me. Melsaran (talk) 13:46, 27 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WODUP&oldid=1144565912"