Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilliamH

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

WilliamH

[edit]

Final (96/0/1); Closed by Rlevse at 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamH (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, I'm delighted to nominate WilliamH for adminship. William has been here since May 2006, and although his editing has been interspersed with some periods of inactivity his contributions since February of this year have been consistent and dedicated. So, as ever;

Article Writing

Editors should also note that William is prepared to tackle articles that create (rightly) much emotion and potential controversy. Other edits to, as an example Talk:Holocaust denial, demonstrate his collaborative abilities and desires. It is allways refreshing to find someone prepared to tackle "tricky" areas by focusing on debate and discussion - all prime admin traits.

Administrative Work
Main page: User:Pedro/WilliamH

When William and I first discussed his taking up the tool box a few red lights flashed in my mind. A brief review of talk page and contributions showed WP:UAA reports and non-admin closures of WP:AFD's - both hot topics and areas to easily make errors in. I discussed these with him and find no concerns at all - I'd urge reviewers to look at the sub-page linked above if they can spare the time - the discussion is revealing and informative. Other bits; CSD - around 150 (rough count) deleted speedy tags seems all good, and a lack of WP:AIV reports is also good news - WilliamH clearly isn't here to play whack-a-mole. Concerns about blocking knowledge will be allayed by a reading of the mentoring page above.

Housekeeping
  • Clean Block Log
  • E-mail enabled
  • Sensible Signature
  • Sensible User Page
  • Edit summary usage 100% in recent months

All, as ever I would not nominate unless I believed there was going to be a Net Positive to Wikipedia. Again, I'd urge those kind enough to comment to review the mentoring sub page as above (note - mentoring for how to be an admin and not how to pass RFA). I believe that granting WilliamH +sysop is a positive move for Wikipedia, and hope that the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action Pedro :  Chat  07:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Many thanks to Pedro for his time, consideration and nomination. WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Per my "get-it-slow-and-right" sentiment, I'd venture out very slowly. As an account creator I understand the account creation process and at first, plan to stick to a territory I'm very comfortable with: WP:UAA. My willingness to keep things ticking over there often grinds to an unceremonious halt because I can't see the whole picture of a given name - that's where seeing deleted contributions would be useful, for instance. Naturally I would continue to comment on the non-blatant violations of username policy, and endeavour to keep the logs down there when they arise, but I daresay a key thing of having the sysop flag in this area would be being able do things without having to get other admins to do it for me, e.g., when User:Kevin's m0m sucks crops up on the list of newly created accounts, I could simply deal with that myself instead of having to be the messenger and make more work for other administrators. In terms of deletion, I'd be more inclined to observe the responses of more seasoned admins rather than dive in with my own upon settling into WP:AFD in an administrative role. I'd also dabble in stemming the tide at CAT:CSD, as I believe my prosaicly motivated mind is a good basis for discerning CSD tags. In general, for all sysop related things, I would have no qualms about requesting the opinion of another administrator.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: While all my contributions have been (and will be) through my interest in improving Wikipedia, I am very pleased with List of The Killers awards, and the three DYKs to my name, also, my significant contributions to Leuchter report and Criticism of Holocaust denial. I've also translated articles into English, such as Coat of arms of Munich, most of whose text originates from the DE-Wiki and I'm pleased to say that it is a Good Article. Article building is something I thoroughly enjoy and intend to continue doing. I believe this is reflected through the opinions of other editors and similarly, my editorial opinion is appreciated too.
I'm also pleased with welcoming the newcomers. Through the original template, and later my own custom one, I have extended good faith welcoming gestures to hundreds of new users. I'd like to think it embodies the sentiment we want to put forward to inexperienced users, and I hope it encourages them to contribute. I liken this to the Butterfly Effect: it's just one edit per user, one simple instance of civility, but who knows what contributions they may end up making.
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: Well for obvious reasons, Godwin's law is null and void on many of the articles I tend to work on. Recently I was involved in a dispute with an editor regarding the location of Auschwitz concentration camp (fruits of that discussion can be found here). I only reverted once, patiently explaining my reasoning, yet the editor in question consistently favoured his own synthesis and understanding. He was blocked for a 3RR violation between another editor who also shared my position. Naturally I would never use admin tools in a debate that I was a disputing party in.
Also, I couldn't help but feel that a long term dispute between two editors on Bombing of Dresden in World War II wasn't going anywhere, so I stepped in. I followed the discussion and became a guiding force somewhat, and I'm very pleased to say that the prose I offered ended the edit war. Of course circumstances change: new contentions, different editors, etc, but basically I believe that articulation is important. I try to consider the effect that my words have, whether in articles or in discussion with another editor. I believe such communication skills are fundamental here, not least for an adminstrator, and not least when dealing in areas that require considerable tact. My inclination for drama is inversely proportionate to the emotions often evoked around such subjects, and I am convinced that if I'm granted sysop rights, the community will have gained a cool, calm and collected administrator.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: At 11.18 the user did make a very constructive edit - very disappointing to see that his next edit ten minutes later was vandalism though. If he is interested in dentistry then perhaps I would ask him to elaborate, e.g. a suggested constructive edit on his talk page. I would be inclined to unblock, and point him in the direction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry, keeping an eye on him. The sentiment I'd put forward is that there is far more satisfaction to be had from lasting constructive edits than inconsequential vandalism, and that if you are decent, you will be treated decently.
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
5. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A: Since I do not believe that anyone is in a position to exactly diagnose someone else's temperament over the internet, no. If someone is grossly incivil for instance, just block them for that. Notwithstanding that inevitably there are those who might be better off responding to things when in a different frame of mind, to discern their mood would always be a gamble and a potential insult might evoke even more abusive behaviour. Not worth it.

Optional question from Doña Macy:

6. What is your opinion about the so-called "anti fence-sitting question"?
A: I guess my opinion is that if you ask anti fence-sitting questions, it's reasonable to expect anti-fence sitting responses. Whether people agree with you or not is another matter, but the response I gave reflects what I believe.

Question from Sceptre:

7. Does the civility policy apply to everybody?
A: Yes. Sorry I can't give you a more elaborate response, but since a) "Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow" doesn't leave anything to the imagination, and b) is something I agree with, I don't know what else I can add. It's the grease on the wheels I think.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong Support Per my nomination. Pedro :  Chat  07:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Almost beat the nom support – No reason not to, excellent user. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Pedro nominated, I'm in! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Writes articles. —Giggy 13:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Rudget 13:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Will surely be an asset to WP. -- Mentisock 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. My primary encounters with WilliamH have been in AfD, and I've pretty universally been impressed with his caution and maturity at it. Now, reviewing his other contributions, I think he looks like prime admin material. ~ mazca t | c 13:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I believe the user will be a net positive, what I like about the users contribs is the List of The Killers awards which is a featured list. Also the UAA work. That being said it looks like be giving WilliamH +sysop will be a net positive move for Wikipedia. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, per mazca, who somehow crawled into my brain and stole my words. Not sure how you did that, but I must say it is rather impressive. Oh, and per Pedro. Per Mazca, who stole my words, and per Pedro, who wrote a nice nomination. Oh, I forgot. Also per the candidate's excellent clue level. So, per Mazca, who stole my words, and per Pedro, and his nomination, and per William's clue. That's all the reasons I need. And per AFD work! Oh, the AFD work! Almost forgot that! So, per Mazca, her theivery, per Pedro, his poetry, per William, and his monopoly, i mean scrabble, i mean Clue, and per AFD work. Yeah, that's all the reasons I need. Keeper ǀ 76 14:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait! Also per Giggy! WilliamH writes articles! So, per Mazca, her swift hands, per Pedro and his swift pen, per the candidate's clue (he did it in the library, with the wrench), and his AFD work, and per Giggy, and per his articles. Not Giggy's, although those are good too. Per WilliamH's articles. That's all the reasons I need. Keeper ǀ 76 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTPAPER, Keeper. Don't hold back if you're moved to say more. :) Darkspots (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's all I need. I don't need anything else. Keeper ǀ 76 16:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. per nom and other fine arguments after ec The crucial phrase from User:Pedro/WilliamH for me was, "When in doubt, don't." I'm not Barak Obama, but I approve this message. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Seen this user at AfD. Thoughtful. Will make a good admin. Darkspots (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per arguments, answers and my own interaction with the user. Ironholds 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Pedro nom, eloquent, adopter, multilingual, account creator, welcoming, good answers to the questions, especially Q4. So - strong support. –xeno (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Keeper's rambling.--KojiDude (C) 14:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    my "ramblings" are totally worth it if they make a chuckle for whatever poor soul is old enough to catch the references...Keeper ǀ 76 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. WilliamH is an excellent contributor who has demonstrated his knowledge of policy and readiness for adminship. Rje (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Usually don't pile on support for no brainers, but since I'm desperately procrastinating in order to avoid work in the real world, I actually went to the trouble of looking into WilliamH's contributions, so I'll add my own of course, a shame we have to wait a week to the chorus. --barneca (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great answers to the questions, great edit summary usage, good contributions and not a single bad thing to find! So#Why review me! 15:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Has more than enough experience in all the right places. Level-headed, communicates well, no problems. Very good answers. I'm happy to support. Okiefromokla questions? 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per all the above. LittleMountain5 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Absolutely: I think William will be a great administrator. Anthøny 15:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per AGK ^^^ ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Complete no-brainer decision. nancy talk 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Per the comments above. America69 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - One of those people that I have wanted to support for a long time... Soxπed93(blag) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Very well-rounded editor. Rather surprised he is not an admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support Strong user who has experience in troublesome areas, yet no black marks on his record - the tools would be in good hands. He also appears to have a zest for boring crap, which is a crucial quality in any admin :D Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Trust the candidate. Trust Pedro. Per nom. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Wow, that diff is...all I can say is wow. Good job, I think you'll do the same excellent work with the use of the mop and bucket. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  29. Support. An experienced and level-headed editor with a solid mainspace and projectspace contribution record, including substantial AfD participation. I looked at quite a few of his AfD !votes, and while I do not necessarily agree with all of them, WilliamH gives civil, reasoned and substantive arguments. I trust that he will interpret consensus and enforce the policies correctly. Nsk92 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. support per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaborL (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support per nom and questions. Answer to Kurt's question (Q5) is especially impressive (although it's anyone's guess as to whether Kurt will agree ;-)). Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support-I've encountered WilliamH on AfD and found him to be intelligent and responsible, with a sound knowledge of the policies. I'm also impressed with his work on article content. About the only thing I can fault this editor on is his deplorable taste in music. But I'm prepared to overlook that and give him my unhesitating support. Reyk YO! 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, by all means. Looks like a fine contributor to me. (Although he sometimes takes 'assume good faith' a bit too far in my opinion, like here and here)  Channel ®   00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, your are a beautiful human being.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 00:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I'm a little late this time, but WilliamH is an asset to Wikipedia. He does great work in the mainspace, has a solid grasp of policies and procedures, and he's civil in his communication. Having him as an admin would be a definite plus. Useight (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support The candidate definitely knows his policy, has been a good mediator, and will be a net positive. Why not? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Per WP:PEDRO. MBisanz talk 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. SupportAlexNebraska (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. It's all been said above, and this candidate offers me no concerns worthy of opposing him. S. Dean Jameson 03:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Great candidate. Midorihana みどりはな 07:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - valuable, thoughtful editor, not afraid to ask for help and learn from others, good answers to questions, no reason not to trust him with the tools. I'm sure he will make a great admin.--BelovedFreak 11:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Looks good to me! :) Malinaccier (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A strong article writer, also participates in admin areas like AfD, etc. Plus a Pedro nom. All pros, no cons. I'm in. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I've had a number of pleasant interactions with this user since he asked me to look into Auschwitz concentration camp about a month ago, where I blocked a user for 3RR. The follow-up from that event revealed that WilliamH has a clue. A brief look at his other contributions revealed no red flags, so I'm proud to support. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 10-4 No reason to oppose. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per Pedro's nom. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I really liked the answer to #6, and also I think that WilliamH will be a good sysop. doña macy [talk] 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support - editing is even more sporadic then mine, but WilliamH is a great article writer and can be trusted. Furthermore the AfD experienced linked to by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles shows no flaws at all. --T-rex 01:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Impressive contribs, and answers to the questions prove that this editor has clue and will not abuse the tools. GlassCobra 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - I've had positive experiences with this editor in the past. He shows a good level of existing knowledge and, more importantly, the self-awareness and initiative required to fill in those areas he could use some work in. --jonny-mt 02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Big ups for editing with the least amount of edits.  ;) Qb | your 2 cents 12:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. And here One big warm glow. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - definitely. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - He's a good guy. Does good work. It's good to see a non-vandal hunter admin here for once (I jest, of course). Good luck with the tools! ScarianCall me Pat! 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Diplomatic. kind. works in parts of the wiki I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole as an article writer. :) Protonk (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support - fully meets all my standards - and then some. Bearian (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per nom. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Super Strong Support - Hes brilliant. From his edits and stuff it looks like he will be a super strong admin. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) [reply]
  64. Support is level headed and answered the questions very well, will be a good admin. Lympathy Talk 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Jennavecia|Talk 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. naerii 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Per the nom and good answers to questions.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Obviously a good candidate, considering... --King Bedford I Seek his grace 16:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Very solid candidate all around. I have absolutely no reasons for concern that admin tools would be misused. This candidate's access to extra buttons will benefit the project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No problems here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. support JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per nom. The candidate is a good content builder and works well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Solid wikipedian, timely nomination. — Athaenara ✉ 04:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - No problems here, Sceptre's oppose doesn't worry me at all.  Asenine  09:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support as we need an admin to tackle controversial issues. spider1224 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. William has the right qualities and the experience. Axl (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong Support Been with Wikipedia for a while now, showed administrative concerns and knowledge. Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong Support I think this guy will be awesome. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support qualified in spades. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - looks good :)   jj137 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong Support For the fact the user does not make countless edits on one page, showing they are not obsessed with WP:Edit count.--LAAFan 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support good answers to questions. Very sensible. No issues here : )--Cameron* 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. This is a reason to support in itself. :) Seriously though, my interactions with and observations of WilliamH have been good, and he'll be a fine administrator. Acalamari 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Despite the lack of Wikiproject endorsements. A fine candidate. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily agree, but only logged in users are allowed to participate at support/oppose/neutral. Feel free to add your comments to the discussion, above. Keeper ǀ 76 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I am a member of WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Munich, hence my translatory efforts. WilliamH (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Nice work. -- Freakatone Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Late to the Party Support. WilliamH is a good content editor, and I think he'll make a fine admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support: I don't normally go by support per norm, but Pedro's nomin fills my confidence. WP:WTHN ? No reasons to believe the user may abuse the tools . Good luck with the mop. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support since there are no oppose votes at this point, le'ts give him the tools and help fight the battle against vandalism, etc. -iaNLOPEZ1115 11:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Looks good enough to me.--Poetlister 16:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Seems to be an able and qualified candidate...Modernist (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Per Giggy (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per Q7 and a long list of positive contributions. No reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, so why not give them to him? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  95. Pile-on support per answers and per nom.  Frank  |  talk  11:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - excellent candidate. Gazimoff 13:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Oppose, doesn't understand that some people are immune from the civility policy, and is likely to make an embarassing mistake in the future when he does blocks those people. Sceptre (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre, this is a rather poor and (unblued) pointed oppose from you, and is related to your current issues with KMWebber. I'm disappointed you feel the need to bring that dispute to this RFA. Pedro :  Chat  11:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, no. That view has been held long before Kurt. Sceptre (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't worth a debate. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Pedro :  Chat  11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, the oppose is a bit POINTY, but at the same time, it's a lesson that needs to be learnt. While the civility policy is supposed to apply to everybody, cursory glances through ANI tell a different story. Sceptre (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By striking the oppose do you mean to retract it? The # signs need to be replaced with :'s if so. –xeno (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sceptre (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral. Support per good arguments and closes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games notable for negative reception (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teeswater (sheep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serg Klimov, but oppose per weak arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:ITSCRUFT) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of masks in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (article actually was consistent with what Wikipedia is). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, support when he agrees with you, oppose when he doesn't? Stifle (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (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/WilliamH&oldid=1089037893"