Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Euryalus

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

Euryalus

Final (96/0/2); Closed as successful byWJBscribeat03:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus(talk·contribs) - Euryalus seems to have what we're looking for. With 14,000 edits accumulated in around 19 months, he would appear to be with us for the long haul. Just over half of his edits are to the encyclopedia, striking a nice balance between writing the encyclopaedia and engaging with the community. In his interactions I have always found him to be polite, helpful and calm. His contributions to debates are carefully considered and clearly articulated, and reveal a good working understanding of our policy and culture. I am certain that only good can come of us extending him a little more trust.Hesperian02:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and thank you to Hesperian for his kind words.Euryalus(talk)03:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A:I'd initially like to work in the areas I am most familiar with as a non-admin, such as Articles for Deletion, CSD and AIV. Over time I would branch out into anywhere that had a backlog, starting with uncontroversial matters and working up to more difficult ones. As with anything on Wikipedia, I’d aim to do my background research and seek advice from others before doing anything in unfamiliar territory.

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

A:My best contribution would probably be my article work, particularlyHM Bark Endeavour.I've created or significantly contributed to around 50 articles includingEwens Ponds,Port of Eden,Tallong,Port of Cirebon,DalgetyandNorth Central Victoria.A list of sorts is atUser:Euryalus/Contributions.

I've also spent a fair bit of time atorphan pagesand thePortsandBangladeshWikiProjects adding content to shorter pages to make them more useful to readers.

Outside mainspace I'd probably point to my contributions to talk page and AfD discussions, where I've tried to resolve disputes or made an effort to research and explain my views:

• Some AfD examples -three professors,a pirate hoax,A fake Mexican,a halberd,
• Some article examples –September 11,Noel Gray,a political heart condition,anda politician's religion.

Taking the time to research and explain your edits helps reduce disputes and keep conversations civil. This is even more so with most admin actions, and where possible I'd aim to maintain this level of communication in using admin tools.

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:Not particularly. In content disputes I’ve found that staying calm and taking the issue to the talk page usually does the trick. Most issues can be resolved by discussion, by considering the other editor's arguments and seeing if there's common ground, or by looking for wider consensus if agreement can't be reached. Sometimes this is easier than others - I've been a contributor to some occasionally heated discussions on subjects such as 9/11, political biographies and articles suffering fromWP:OWN,but I've never felt especially annoyed if people don't agree with me. If in doubt a few deep breaths and some time spent just reading articles instead of editing them does wonders.

I've also done my share of vandalism reverts and had the usual userpage vandalism in return. Once again, nothing to get upset about.

Additional Questions fromBalloonman

4.Euryalus, I've been reviewing your edits since your RfA went live. Right now, I am leaning towards supporting you, but I've been bothered by a number of your CSD nominations. Let me state up front, I haven't seen any that I wouldn't delete, but the rationale for some has been off. In your own words, could you explain what constitutes Patent Nonsense? Why would the following NOT be patent nonsense:12345---Balloonman^PoppaBalloon04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AThe formal description atWP:PNis a pretty good one, so it's hard to describe it in my own words without paraphrasing. Nonetheless - patent nonsense is either random sets of characters with no obvious meaning, or something that may have a sentence structure or some apparent point to make, but is so confused as to make no sense to a reader. The first of these is rare, the second more common but sometimes hard to technically separate from the definition of G3 (vandalism). Some articles may fall into more than one CSD category (eg. an attack page that is also vandalism), so the choice of which tag to apply can be a judgement call on the day.

To the examples:

• 1 could also be a G10 attack page - trying to portray this Dr Leon in a negative light. It could be G3 vandalism if you considered the article primarily an attempt at crude humour. It might also be nonsense - a confused screed about skin colour and people with freckles, with a schoolteachers name on the bottom.
• 2 was one I remember thinking about for a while. It might be G3 vandalism, if Unustheism was a genuine religious belief and this information was a deliberately false representation. It certainly lacks context (A1) but the CSD criteria relate A1 to very short articles, and this is too long to fit neatly there. Patent nonsense excludes religious excogitations, which this might be. However I could find no evidence of Unustheism to support the view that this was a genuine religious dissertation. After considering the wording of WP:PN I was of the view this materal fitted the "nonsense" definition of something apparently meaningful after a fashion, but so irredeemably confused as to mean nothing to the reader.
• 3 is an A7 - an article about an apparently real person which doesn't indicate why its subject is notable. It appears from the tag that this is what I used.
• 4 might be better tagged as G3 vandalism (it contains obvious misinformation, for example no one played with Led Zeppelin in 1986 as they disbanded in 1980 other than the 1985 LiveAid partial reformation, and there is no evidence of such a person associated with Neptune or any other band) but I'd also consider an AfD as a hoax, or an A7 as a non-notable bio (allegedly mixing with notable people does not of itself impart notability and ther eis no other claim to fame). I recall askingNawlinwikiabout A7 vs AfD for this kind of issuehere,and gettingthis advice.If I tagged this as patent nonsense, I probably shouldn't have as G3 or A7 would have fitted better.
• 5 could also be an attack page, or potentially a PROD as a non-notable neologism. However, to paraphrase the article - "A certain type of eel fishing started because someone had a nickname because they looked like a person on a biscuit packet." This seems to fit within the definition of nonsense reasonably well.Euryalus(talk)06:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, my concern with the above, and the reason I don't consider them to be patent nonsene, is per WP:CSD---This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.The one about Unustheism, IMHO, is probably a hoax, poor writing, poor translation(?)---all of which are explicitly excluded from Patent Nonsense. It is probably the one article that I would NOT have deleted, but would have sent to AfD. The one about skin color, is better tagged as an attack page or vandalism. Again, as a hoax/poor writing, it is explicitly excluded. Number3 you either used nonsense in your edit summary or I clicked on the wrong button, either way, we'll ignore it because you did tag it correctly in the article. Number 4 you are right, there were better tags. Number 5, again, IMO attack page or not enough material would be a better tags. It is important to adhere to speedy deletion tags because speedy deletions can chase people away from the project and create negative feelings. The person who is chased away today, might have become a regular FA contributor, admin, crat, etc tomorrow, but left the project because their article was incorrectly speedily deleted.---Balloonman^PoppaBalloon17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional (optional) question fromToddst1:

5.If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do and why? (Note:Wikipedia:SUICIDEis an essay).

A:It may be only an essay, but it provides excellent advice. While most suicide threats aren't serious, the decision regarding which ones actuallyareis best left to experts. The issue should be brought to the attention of AN/I and the Wikimedia Foundation, quickly but with a minimum of "drama" or editorial comment. Where it is possible to identify the location of the user, the appropriate authorities should also be advised. The threat itself should probably be deleted from the user talk page to avoid it becoming a topic of ongoing discussion. None of these steps need admin tools - the few potential admin actions (like page protection to prevent the threat being restored and debated by third parties) would depend on the circumstances. In summary: a quick response, a minimum of fuss and referral to expert authorities.Euryalus(talk)00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• SeeEuryalus's edit summary usage withmathbot's tool.For the edit count, see thetalk page.

• Links for Euryalus:Euryalus(talk·contribs·deleted·count·AfD·logs·block log·lu·rfar·spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive andcivil.If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly reviewSpecial:Contributions/Euryalusbefore commenting.

Discussion

• Can someone either post the text ofRoy Stewart (surfer)somewhere or temporary undelete it? A CSD notice for an admin-hopeful is highly unusual and should be looked at.NuclearWarfare^{contact me}_{My work}04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• He did not create the article, he merely did a cut and paste split of the article fromRoy Stewart.Seehereandherefor details. The content was contributed by byOlosurfer(talk·contribs). --Mattinbgn\^talk04:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I looked at it. The thing was created back in January of 2008 and underwent 40 edits before being tagged for speedy deletion, including DAB and CAT. In fact, one version may actually assert notability, before a vandal got to it. Cheers,Dlohcierekim05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• As Mattinbgn indicates, in January this year a new user (Olosurfer) was trying to create an article about a surfer called Roy Stewart, but was adding it to the end of an article onRoy Stewartthe actor. He'd been reverted a couple of times but kept coming back, so to assist him I moved the text toRoy Stewart (surfer).The version I moved asserted limited notability (a pioneer of wooden surfboard design) but it had no refs and little detail so I left Olosurfer a note indicating I'd moved it but it needed sources. I don't know whether he added them or not, but 10 months later it was deleted (presumably it had stayed unreferenced over that time). If it was today I might have moved the text to Olosurfer's userspace instead of its own page.Euryalus(talk)05:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have accessed the deleted text and placed it in my userspace for people to view. This is Euryalus' version:User:Richardcavell/Roy Stewart (surfer).The most recent version, which was deleted, and for which Euryalus was not the most recent editor, is here:User:Richardcavell/Roy Stewart (surfer): Most recent version.It was deleted byOrangemike.-Richard Cavell(talk)09:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator.Hesperian03:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong supportAn outstanding editor and great contributor atWP:AUS.While not afraid to take a position, he nevertheless steers clear of Wikidramaz and retains a cool head when discussion may get heated. A feature of his contributions to the project is the quality of his AfD comments. Not satisfied with a "per nom" comment, Euryalus provides detailed information, referring to policy or guidelines on what has prompted his!vote and advice on what could be done to change it; see[1],[2],[3]and[4].--Mattinbgn\^talk03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
3. SupportMeets mycriteria.Wisdom89_(T/^C)03:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong supportYellowMonkey(click here to choose Australia's next top model!)03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Ooh yeah.Great contributor and will be a great admin.Moondyne04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
6. SupportI was very impressed with the Barnstar of Rescue. Impressed by talk page. I found ~700 deleted edits.Dlohcierekim04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Support.A consistent record of valued and considered contributions.Melburnian(talk)04:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
8. SupportVery well-rounded editor, no serious conflicts, could definitely put admin tools to good use.Voyaging^(talk)04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
9. SupportThoughtful contributor who gives every indication of being respectful and prudent with the tools.Xymmax^{So let it be written}_{So let it be done}05:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Support.I would trust you with the tools, and you have a fine contribution history. ⇔∫Æ_Sdt@05:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Yes you have mySupport.--intraining^{Jack In}07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Support- Will be just fine with the few extra buttons. -Peripitus(Talk)08:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Support— Good editor, impressive answer to Balloonman's question in my opinion, nice ability to clarify things simply. Why not. —Cyclonenim(talk·contribs·email)09:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Support- history demonstrates trustworthiness: Clear style in both articles and talk pages, non confrontational, dedicated to getting things right (as demonstrated by research for AfD). I believe precision and consideration mean the tools are safe in his hands, and that's what counts.Unusual? Quite^TalkQu10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Support-- echoing the support given above. I have no reason to see or believe otherwise. -Longhair\^talk11:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Aussieaussieaussie-oioioi...seriously though, clear net positive and excess of light over heat indicate a net positive for the 'pedia. Cheers,Casliber(talk·contribs)11:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Support- Has, in my opinion, the most important qualification for the extra buttons:“Investigator”.Euryalusresearches his/her opinion before expressing it. Looks at both sides of a situation, researches it, than formulates his/her response based on the situation and the facts. Now that is someone who hasAdministratormaterial. Good luck to you.ShoesssS^Talk12:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
18. SupportLooks like a good candidate.Sam^Blab12:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
19. Supportper above especially the question answers, and from reviewing candidates contributions such as toTalk:Kevin RuddϢereSpielChequers12:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong supportAgree with nom and Mattinbgn amongst others. A strong editor on content alone even not considering his admirably even temperament when handling disputes such as those atTalk:John HowardandTalk:Nicola Roxonwith the calm and factual approach that was sorely needed and without taking sides. Wish you the best on this one.Orderinchaos13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
21. Hello, I'mSarah Palinand I'd like to return this clothing I recently received as a gift -- I have my receipt for the $150,000 purchase and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here:Supportfor a highly worthy candidate (you betcha).Ecoleetage(talk)13:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    It takes a real maverick to try to return clothes on a website. Erik theRed2~~~~22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

22. Support.Looks great.Nsk92(talk)13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
23. Supportper nom and experience of seeing the work in the Australian projectSatuSuro13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
24. SupportI find no reason for concern. Also, per the very thoughtful answer to Q4.SWik78(talk•contribs)13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
25. Supportany editor remaining after 18hours,days,months of circular discussions on articles likeJohn Howard&Nicola Roxonneeds apadded cellmop, and should be sharing hishappy pillswith the rest of usGnangarra14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Giggling uncontrollably.Dlohcierekim15:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

26. Support- He seems to be patient and methodical, even when the discussion gets hot. I liked his answer to Q4.EdJohnston(talk)14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
27. Support- No significant problems witnessed here.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byNeurolysis(talk•contribs)
28. (ec)SupportThought I had done so last night, but when I started reviewing Euryalus, I thought for sure that I was going to oppose him. There were some red flags that popped up immediately: Heavy use of bots, sppedy deleter, and lack of meaningful talk page discussions (EG there are few pages where he's made more than a few edits). I particularly hate Speedy Deleters... while I recognize the need for them, I will only support the best of the best because IMHO a wreckless speedy deleter can be as harmful to the project as the most persistent vandal---and may never be noticed. So I took a very close look at Euryalus, probably close to four hours (interspersed with watching the election results)! I checked a large number of his AFD contributions, where he makes solid well rounded policy based persuasive arguments. I checked well over 100 of his CSD's... and while I caution him on the use of Patent Nonsense and *I* might have referred one or two to AFD, there weren't any that I felt were mistagged. I also checked out his talk page---particularly looking for "reverts" or other signs of removing complaints. Again, I would suggest carrying on conversations where they start and not jumping from page to page. I also looked at his other contributions. The more I saw, the more convinced that I became that Euryalus is a speedy deleter that I could support. His answer to my question above, satisfys my only concern.---Balloonman^PoppaBalloon14:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
29. Supportas candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions with the candidate. --A Nobody^{My talk}16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
30. Support,good article editor, but please do teach yourself the speedy deletion criterias better. --Aqwis(talk–contributions)17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
31. SupportI like all of your contributions and you've put in enough work to articles that I feel comfortable with. Please work on improving your CSD work so it is more accurate as any wrongly speedied article always hurts the project. However, you are trustworthy and I believe you will improve in that area. --Banime(talk)18:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
32. SupportTrustworthy editor. When in doubt, AfD is never a bad idea.GlassCobra19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
33. SupportAfter Careful Consideration.User has been around since April 2007 and has over 7000 mainspace edits and over 14000 overall.The user is a Good editor but has made a few questionable edits in CSD and further the fact he plans to work in CSD and Deletions as per question 1 made me think.But after reviewing his contribution again see no chance of misuse and has shown great commitment to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards(talk)20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
34. SupportSafe, Sound, Capable, Enthusiastic, Thoughtful, Considerate. Did I miss anything?Pedro:Chat21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, I think so...trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent---Balloonman^PoppaBalloon21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Good Lord, theex-coloniesdo have some use. Didn't they recently have a local election as well? Gosh, it's a high time over the other side of the pond!Pedro:Chat21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

35. Work is too good for me to oppose, darn.;)Ceran→(sing→see→scribe)21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
36. Support.Good contributions & reasonable answers.Axl¤[Talk]21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
37. Je soutiens ce candidat.I don't see why not. Net positive. Cheers,RockManQ^(talk)22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
38. Support.macy22:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
39. Supportthis user seems to a perfect candidate, clean block log, varied contributions, article work, high edit count; per myRfA criteriaFoxyLoxy^Pounce!22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
40. Support.Candidate has good knowledge of policy and is a little iffy with CSD tags, but positives overpower this issue.DiverseMentality22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
41. SupportLooks Good To Me.II MusLiM HyBRiD II^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja}23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
42. SupportLooks great to me. We could use an admin atWikipedia:AL.Bearian(talk)23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
43. Keeps a cool head in heated discussions and remains dispassionate and committed to the goals of Wikipedia; strongly support.east718//talk//email//23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
44. Supportbecause of many good articles.Crystal whacker(talk)23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
45. SupportA well experienced editor, very careful in his work, and dedicated. I think we can trust him not to make the wrong decisions or misuse the tools in any way. He should definitely get the tools.Chamal^talk00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
46. SupportI don't mind the CSD tags issues that much, and Q4 assured me that it's not too much of an issue. Otherwise, a great candidate, definitely deserving!Firebat08(talk)00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
47. Support- great article work, good communication and trustworthy editor.Somno(talk)00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
48. Support– Very good article work, loads of experience in vandalism, the patent nonsense question does raise some concerns but they are very minor, i'd trust this user in using sysop tools. –Jerry^teps00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
49. SupportLooks good to me, good luck!T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock:-)^(T/C)01:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
50. SupportperWP:WTHNat the moment, asI see nothing ofimmediateconcern.I'll take a closer look as the RfA progresses.–Juliancolton^{TropicalCyclone}01:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
51. Weak supportVery bold edits I'd say, but your meaning of "pantent nonsense" is kind of confusing. Took me a few minutes to figure out what you were trying to say.Leujohn^{(talk,How did I do?)}
52. Yes, yes, a thousand times over, and a thousand times under,yes.Prolific contributor who has earned the level of trust associated with the tools.Valtoras(talk)05:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
53. Support- Yep!AdjustShift(talk)09:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
54. Support- Seems to research issues in a painstaking and diligent way.Colonel Warden(talk)13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
55. Strong Support- Users seems to be extremly experienced and know how to use the tools. You have my vote all the way. --Elite Rhodes(talk)15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
56. Support.For some reason I thought I had already participated in this RFA, but I realized I hadn't yet. Anyway, Euryalus is sufficiently experienced. Meets mycriteria.Useight(talk)17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
57. SupportThe editor seems to be a good candidate for adminship, so why not? We can always use the help, especially with CSDs, where the backlog is often at 100+ and I am sure that he will restrain himself on CSD#G1 deletions in cases where he is in doubt. The candidate seems to be able to not start running amok with deletions and has instead indicated to be willing to be cautious. I think he can be trusted to keep that promise.;-)SoWhy17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
58. Support- seems very trustworthy, and the CSD tagging issue does not seem that major (asBalloonmansaid his main concern was regarding CSDcategories,not with tagging pages which shouldn't have been tagged at all, for the most part).It Is Me Here(talk)19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
59. Trust this candidate not to go apeshitwith G1 speedy deletion et cetera. My experience of this candidate has been encouraging.SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK20:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
60. SupportGood candidate.America69(talk)20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
61. Supportahhhh yup... nothing here but good stuff.Gtstricky^TalkorC20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
62. Support,seems fine.Stifle(talk)23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
63. Support,seems level headed enough, no evidence that user will abuse the tools.Lankiveil^{(speak to me)}23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC).
64. Support- After a look over this user's contributions, I have found nothing but good things: logical and level-headed discussions, and practical edits. This user will make a fine admin. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸²(_talk\^contribs)23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
65. Supportper theWhy Not? Doctrine.- -' The Spook(TALK)_{(Share the Love with Barnstars)}00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
66. Support:all good.Toddst1(talk)01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
67. Support- I believe the user will handle the "delete" button responsibly. --Lenticel^(talk)02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
68. Support.Fully qualified candidate.Newyorkbrad(talk)04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
69. SupportSo good that nobody else is running for RfA because they can't compete! Also, solid contributions (at least, the last 100 are).MasterofPuppets_{Call me MoP!:)}06:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
70. Support:You have my trust! --TinuCherian-08:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
71. Support:I like a Latinist.Deb(talk)12:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
72. Support:for what it is still worth (removing nonsense is excellent work)Woodwalker(talk)15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
73. SupportLooks good to me. —αἰτίας•discussion•16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
74. Troppus.Synergy20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
75. SupportMost excellent. Erik theRed2~~~~22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
76. Support.No problems here!Malinaccier(talk)23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
77. Support.Sounds like you'd really like to get down n' dirty to clean up Wikipedia. Hope all your dreams come true!Mononomic(talk)02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
78. Support– Mostly perMattinbgn.A quick glimpse of the candidate's last 500 edits shows me a lot of good qualities administrators should have as far as I can tell. Will do just fine as an administrator. –RyanCross(talk)07:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
79. SupportI hate being late to the party.MBisanz^talk09:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
80. Support- I see no reason not to support --Flewis^(talk)13:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
81. Serious content editor, yes.--Scott MacDonald(talk)13:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
82. Support- refreshing candidate.Caulde13:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
83. SupportI see no reason this user would abuse the tools.Spencer^T♦C01:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
84. Support,this candidate seems to be very much decent and clearly puts in effort to his writing.P.Marlow(talk)14:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
85. Supportas per nominator;)Imperat§ r^(Talk)20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
86. Support—JoJo•Talk•21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
87. Support.See no issues here, no reason to suspect this user would abuse the tools.Jayjg^(talk)03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
88. SupportAlthough the concern presented by Neutral party is not satisfiable, the candidate's general contribution looks great, so I believe the candidate do not misuse the admin tools. Good luck.-Caspianblue16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
89. Support- I cannot see this user abusing the admin tools. Best wishes,Eric Wester(talk·contribs·email)17:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
90. Support- no major issues in the "oppose" section.Tohd8BohaithuGh1(talk)20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
91. Yes, this candidate will be a good administrator. Happilysupport.Use the tools well!AGK22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    SupportWill probably end up joining the Dark Side, though.MasterofPuppets_{Call me MoP!:)}02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    You voted twice.RockManQ^(talk)04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    apparently] Euryalus has really impressed him or its withdrawal symptoms due the lack of other nominations. Either way I took some liberties and struck this oneGnangarra05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    SupportI'm just so enthusiastic about Euryalus that I'm going to keep supporting!MasterofPuppets_{Call me MoP!:)}06:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

92. Support.Per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some noticeable positive contributions to this project. Thank you for your work here.Cirt(talk)07:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
93. Support- good answers to questions, shows sufficient understanding of policy. Most importanly, his article contributions are quite good, with no evidence of tendentious editing, flawed dispute resolution, etc. --Ynhockey^(Talk)12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
94. SupportSeems to be a very strong candidate, should make good use of the tools.Parsecboy(talk)18:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
95. SupportAgain? Yes. Some hardcore contributing here. -FlyingToaster20:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
96. Support,gladly.Maxim_(talk)02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose.No user should ever pass RfA without a single oppose.Everyme11:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. NeutralSorry, I can't support due to the "Patent Nonsense" CSD mistakes. It shows the candidate hasn't read the speedy deletion criteria very well. We already have too many admins who don't understand the criteria.Epbr123(talk)15:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

   Apparently there's a difference between what the RFA cabal thinks should be done and actual practice. Some admins apparently useWP:CSD#G1to coverWP:IARorWP:SNOWdeletions that don't really fit any specific criteria. When prospective admins tag this way, and the admins delete, they don't realize they are making a mistake. Could that be the case here? In any event, I think the candidate is enough of a rescuer to not make hasty deletions a bad habit.Dlohcierekim17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

   And G1 is the most abused reason for speedy deletions for that reason... if it doesn't fit one of the criteria cleanly, then it probably shouldn't be speedy deleted. The criteria are strict for a reason. An over eager speedy deleter can do more long term damage to the project than a vandal!---Balloonman^PoppaBalloon18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

   There is a custom CSD tag, by the way. Things that are for example IAR CSDs should be tagged as such, and not G1'ed.—neuro^(talk)19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think it's likely that the candidate will jump into a deletion without thinking, and indeed, whilst we're on that topic, I would strongly caution him against taking any action without thoroughly considering the consequences therein. He's sane enough to grasp that basic fact without my assistance, however, don't you think, Epbr?AGK22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral- I can't really support either due to the G1 mistakes. G1 isn't really a complicated thing to mess up. Balloonman said it best; "If it doesn't fit one of the criteria cleanly, then it probably shouldn't be speedy deleted." At best, it should be prodded. -NuclearWarfare^{contact me}_{My work}01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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 eitherthis nominationor the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.