Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coren 3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coren_3

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

(51/1/2); Was scheduled to end 20:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Coren (talk · contribs) - Coren has been active since April of this year, and made edits as far back as May 2003. Coren ran for adminship in July of this year, and the main concerns were 1) lack of general experience and 2) Unfamiliarity with deletion policy. Since that RFA, Coren has been running CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs), which reports possible copyvios at WP:SCV, and active in providing in doing copyright taggings related to that page. This kind of work involves multiple disciplines of Wikipedia work. This bot has been blocked just once in 3+ months of continuous operation, and that block was during the earliest days. Coren has also responded tactfully to the many complaints and questions that inevitably come from running such a bot. Dealing with copyvios is a task we obviously will always need more admins for, so that Coren could use the admin tools shouldn't be a question at all.

Looking through Coren's last 500 contribs, I see only one speedy deletion tagging that was declined,[1] and I think it was clearly an honest mistake. Combined with being more active on pages like WT:CSD in discussions about deletion policy, I think we can safely say Coren has learned a lot since the last RFA.

Coren seems to work a great deal with text copyvios, and we've promoted several admins largely for their work in this area... Garion96, Butseriouslyfolks, Lucasbfr, etc... they're all success stories. The kind of work Coren does suggests both a need for the admin tools and the familiarity with policy to use them correctly. W.marsh 20:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you, W.marsh. — Coren ^(talk) 21:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brief statement: A weaker area that has been pointed out to me during my previous RfA is lack of mainspace experience; with the support and encouragement from other editors, I have done a bit of progress in that area, and even managed to get a DYK. It wouldn't be honest to qualify me as a prolific article writer, and I doubt I'll often do much more than flesh out the occasional stub or add a reference when I stumble on an article on a topic I have knowledge on; but I do understand what article writing is all about, and I'll always keep an eye open for places where I can contribute. I am, mostly, an exopedian by nature and this is where you can expect to find my efforts best spent: supporting the hard work of those who do write the featured articles we all like.

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

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

A: I do a great deal of copyright violation work, and will always be a diligent spam and vandal hunter. I am familiar with most administrative areas, however, and more than willing to hack away at any backlog that crops up. Related to copyright problems is the regular fix of cut-and-paste moves which CSBot regularly flushes out and which are a GFDL problem that requires the tools to correct.

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

A: My work in new page patrolling is where I best serve the encyclopedia. Besides the obvious pruning of damaging vandalism, sometimes the quick attention of the patrollers is what allows a substandard article that would slip through the cracks to become a valuable stub, or even a good article.

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: Surprisingly little, given the large number of candidates for deletions I have put up; and the vast amount of copyright violations and spam I have tackled. I always take the time to explain not only why I've put an article up for deletion, but also how to rewrite it so that it will pass muster next time; and I never turn away a good faith editor who just needs a guiding hand.

Q. A few matters that some others here thought might have represented conflicts have been mentioned below. Besides them, what is the closest you have come on wikipedia to losing your temper, or to some other serious conflict?DGG (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have read this question to be more restricted than intended— I was under the impression that it referred to content disputes.

As for conflict in general, it doesn't tend to be visible, because I have learned to walk away and let someone else deal with things when I feel I'm close to loosing my temper. Probably the closest I've come to actually start yelling at someone is my spat with Ruanua (talk · contribs) during her well-meaning campaign for some environmental group. When she started to accuse me of campaigning against her, I basically lost it— erased her messages from my talk page and replaced them by a civil but aggressive rant about baseless accusations.

I have since learned to point out a proper forum for grievances and walk away. Thicker skin or something.  :-)

I' glad to see that it was several months ago, but it seems she had not really do anything to provoke it--her comments were what I'd consider a reasonably polite complaint.DGG (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did have thinner skin then.  :-) I do a great deal of environmental work myself, and being told that I do "climate change denial", and the implication that I was on a campaign to delete environmental groups felt very much like a personal attack; and I got flustered. I should point out that while my tone had gotten a little more aggressive, it never got out of hand to the point of becoming attacks (I realized, at that point, that I should step away and not look back). — Coren ^(talk) 01:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from Nat

4. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?

A: It's mostly a question of intent. When an editor is banned, then we make the statement that contributions from that person is no longer welcome, regardless of what form they take. A block is just a technical measure to prevent an account from editing. Bans usually imply indefinite blocks, but the converse is often not the case: an account might have been indefinitely blocked because of the username policy, but is welcome to contribute with a different account name.

5. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?

A: If there is no vandalism, and no edit warring, then there is nothing to be done with the editor at all. Wikipedia survives well-behaved disagreements about contents, and some may even argue that NPOV thrives out of the compromises that are spawned between "POV warriors". In borderline case where article stability is threatened, temporary protection of the article(s) to "nudge" the editors into discussion on the talk page might be just what the doctor ordered. I presume here that the POV pusher nonetheless remains civil, and within WP:V and WP:OR.

6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?

A: Biographical articles gain a great deal, as a rule, by having a portrait of the subject. Given that it may be very hard, or even nearly impossible, to make a new good-looking photograph of a well-known personality (because of security, or difficulty to approach), I would tend to encourage free pictures if they exist at all but there are cases where there is little alternative. (As an exercise, imagine if the official photographs of George W Bush were not public domain by virtue of being work of the executive office; managing to snap a good portrait of the president of the Unites States is essentially impossible for an editor). In a case like this, I beleive "No free equivalent" is satisfied and the non-free picture may be allowable (if it follows every other criteria, of course).

7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A: Yes. Adminship is a matter of trust, and trust can be lost as well as gained.

8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?

A: I'm going to essentially repeat my previous answer to that question because I felt I did capture how I feel very well. I see IAR as mostly meaning "Ignore the letter of the rule when they prevent you from following the spirit of the rule". I don't think policy and guidelines arrived by long discussion to consensus should be ignored "just because". Genuine examples where actually ignoring a rule really helped make a better encyclopedia are exceedingly rare; and in general the correct thing to do would be get consensus to change the rule, not ignore it because it's inconvenient.

IAR is an exceptional defense to breaking the rules that should be used sparingly, and justified thoroughly every time.

9. What is the purpose of a block? Is it a punitive action? New question added by Nat (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Unequivocally not. Most blocks are protect the encyclopedia from someone who has become too disruptive or destructive, not to "punish" them for that behavior. Alternately, they can be seen as a "cool off" period, allowing the editor to return with a calmer mind and therefore less likely to be disruptive. This is why a blocked user requesting in good faith that his block be lifted by stating he well cause no further damage should usually be considered seriously.

(I am presuming you did not mean blocks not related to behavior at all).

Question from WP2007

10. How will you get along with other administrators that do not share your beliefs? For example, some admin use blocks as a punitive measure. Will you unblock or argue for use as a protection tool, not as a punishment tool? Another answer was about IAR. What if an admin was IAR because the rules did not suit him or her? Wheel war or accept the improper behavior of the admin and look the other way. (This is not directed against you but is a legitimate question to all admin: all RFA pledge to act the right way but what if they see other admin not acting the right way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WP2007 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A1: I will certainly argue for unblocking on the admin's talk page, but not act directly against another admin unless it was egregious. A simple well asked "are you sure that was wise" does wonders.

A2: I'm more likely to bring misuse of IAR to a forum like AN/I if it's repeated. Admins who just ignore the rules and the community when it's convenient are breaching the trust given them, and can be very detrimental to the general trust of editors in the community (which, for good or ill, the admins end up the "spokepersons" of).

11. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: The policy is quite clear that barring an obvious mistake, you should not revert a block before a discussion with the blocking admin or, if that fails, by bringing this to the larger community at AN. I intend to follow that rule, which is both common courtesy and the best way to avoid escalation into wheel warring.

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

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

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

1. Beat-the-nominator-support! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I believe this user is now ready for the mop. Good luck, ELIMINATORJR 21:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support obviously (why do noms even have to comment here? grumble grumble) --W.marsh 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. No problems here. Good luck.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ρх₥α 22:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I think the time has come. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 23:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. No concerns here. Nick 23:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Unlikely to use the mop other than for the intended purposes. LessHeard vanU 23:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - trustworthy candidate. Addhoc 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong support — not only does this user have a clear need for the tools, but they have shown that they will use them responsibly and maturely. --Haemo 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Maser ^(Talk!) 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong support — Coren has helped tremendously over at WP:SCV in a number of ways. CorenSearchBot is an outstanding tool for ferreting out copyvios, and Coren has been quick to modify it to refine its precision. Due to CSB, Coren gets many complaints on his own talk page about pages tagged by the bot, and he is civil in responding, mindful that WP:C is not a simple policy. Coren has also pitched in to process the possible copyvios reported by CSB and other bots. We can always use more admin hands at SCV, since many of the editors who helped out there have become admins and moved on to other areas. (And I believe this need will be more acute once IP's are able to create pages.) Writing encyclopedic content may not be Coren's best quality, but he has increased his contributions in that area, and remember, it takes all kinds of editors to keep this project going strong. We need the photographers and writers to create original content; we need the programmers to give us helpful scripts and bots; we need the policy wonks to guide our direction; we need the copyeditors and formatting geeks to keep us looking nice and professional; we need the vandal patrollers to keep the bad guys in line; and we need the wikignomes to categorize, add maintenance tags and otherwise take care of the clerical and janitorial things around here. Coren qualifies as a programmer and for his quasi-admin gnome work over at SCV, and I believe he will be an asset as an admin. -- But|seriously|folks  02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support I feel that there are no major concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. + Keegan^talk 03:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Has handled himself quite well in the Sadi Carnot arbitration case by presenting well-researched, concise, and relevant evidence while sidestepping wikidrama. Editors who walk the coals that well usually do well as sysops. Coren already does plenty of the thankless moppish tasks, would be more effective with the tools. Durova^Charge! 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Answered the questions well, good contributions. No issues. Twenty Years 04:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Level headed and calm. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. MER-C 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Why not? Good work throughout Wikipedia. -- Jack ^{is celebrating his birthday!} 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Great answers, seems to have fixed issues since last nomination, understands policy and seems very polite. Will be great with the mop.
    Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Rudget _zŋ 11:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Frankly, by continuing to let him run his bot, I'm of the opinion that the community has already given him as much power to damage Wikipedia as the average administrator has. Since he hasn't abused that trust, I see zero reason not to reward his responsibility with even more tools for him to put to good use. Antelan ^talk 16:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support--MONGO 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Butseriouslyfolks pretty much covered everything I could possibly say. Considering the amount of Wikistress placed upon him, Coren is impressively civil, he is quick to resolve problems (but yet not impulsive), and he still manages to get other work done. I find that impressive. He's conducted himself admirably in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Finally, Operating CorenSearchBot is not easy; the few users that hate it hate it with a magnitude rivaled perhaps only by some of the hate expressed toward Betacommandbot. Adminship will be a breeze for him. — madman bum and angel 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. I'm not Mailer Diablo, but I still approve this candidate! —Animum _{(a rag man)} 20:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support John254 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. I trust Coren's judgement. Spebi 07:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Does not appear ready to run amok. Oppose argument, while lengthy, was not compelling. Corenbot's help is much appreciated in identifying copyvio's. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Has significantly improved his editing, and has learned a lot. Now ready for the mop. Bearian 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the last RfA and so much has been learnt. Should be just fine - Alison ^❤ 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. I see no reason to not trust this user. He seems more than ready for the tools. SorryGuy 21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Weak Support A bit lacking in a couple areas, but nothing too bad. Jmlk17 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. I've seen this editor's work and agree that he's ready for the mop; I've seen some thoughtful and intelligent contributions. Accounting4Taste 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Clearly a decent editor. Acalamari 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Plenty of extra experience built up since last time. Seems to know what he's doing - should make a good admin. WjBscribe 04:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. I was impressed with Coren's persistence and good will here. Chick Bowen 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Weak support - mainspace work is rather low, but apart from that, this user is generally OK. Lradrama 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support! —Reedy Boy 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. No biggie. Knows what he's doing and does it well, cares about us. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support should do fine with the tools. Carlossuarez46 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support — Save_Us_229 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44.  Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - A candidate I've been watching some months now. Reliably civil, measured rather than rash, wiki-focused, clued in to the degree an admin needs to be, good understanding and analytic ability which is used well, does much that shows maturity, and able to make sensible decisions on his own account. As Riana says, "cares". Note also the discussion and the decision to accept waiting a little longer for the community to see a more solid track record - ability to exhibit patience for others, and to state a reasoned stance honestly, are also good attributes. The couple of clearly good-faith CSD concerns and one difficult editor aside, Coren is likely to learn from such errors as may exist, and they seem comparatively rare in any event; they are unlikely to be a sign leading to future misuse/abuse of the tools. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Great contributions, likely to be a great admin. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - (psst, there is a backlog at WP:CP). Garion96 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Strong contributions. I trust this user's judgment. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Support, As the developer of CorenSearchBot, a very useful anti-copyvio bot, I don't see any reason to oppose. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support plenty of experence, doubt will abuse admin tools. Tiddly-Tom 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. First I should say that I am reluctant to oppose. I have worked with Coren at WP:SCV, and appreciate his work there. I think that administrators should be willing to help editors. Where an editor is distressed, administrators should, at the very least, not further their distress. Coren has furthered editors' distress. I am concerned that, as an administrator, Coren may alienate experienced and newbie editors and content contributors alike. I am opposing because I concerned of his future actions should he get the block button.
   • I don't think I can pick out specific diffs which illustrate my concerns, but conversations between Aude (talk · contribs) and Coren can be reviewed at Aude's, Madman's and Coren's talk pages and archives; and the conversations between Mattisse (talk · contribs) and Coren can be found at WT:SCV (that and several threads below it), WP:ANI and Coren's talk page.
   • The impression I get from those dialogues is that Coren is not very empathetic to editors. He simply dismissed Aude's concerns that admins should be whitelisted (and this month whitelisted Charles Matthews [2]). He dismissed, spoke somewhat threateningly, and spoke condescendingly to Mattisse regarding her concerns (in the WT:SCV archive).

     I am sorry, Iamunknown, I take the rest of your opposition in stride, but I did offer to whiltelist her personally, just as I have whitelisted Charles Matthews. — Coren ^(talk) 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     I overlooked that. Sorry. Now striken. --Iamunknown 03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     And my civil (but admittedly curt) final response to matisse came after over 28 aggressive messages in less than 18 hours left on CSBot's talk page, my talk page, AN/I, and WT:CSV; interspersed with about 24 pointy speedy taggings. I hardly think my comment was out of line. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     I think that Mattisse was genuinely frustrated. She is an otherwise productive editor. Marginalising her concerns by pointing to her pointy behaviour is, at best, inappropriate. --Iamunknown 03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   • Coren communicated with new editor Ikonak solely in templates. Granted, the articles Ikonak were creating were possibly spam (judging by the warnings and deletion log summaries). While I can then sympathize with one or two templates, it should become clear that multiple templates are ineffective. Experienced editors and admins should be willing to engage new editors in genuine discussion. Not all spammers are lost causes; some do become good editors. And I'm fairly certain Ikonak is not coming back to Wikipedia; the account has not edited since this incident. Furthermore, Coren left a final warning to stop creating these articles. Threating to block a new editor for creating articles in good-faith and which are not disruptive, even if they are misguided, is unacceptable. It is simply not what we need an administrator to do.
   • I am thus commenting that I do not think that Coren should be an administrator. Admins are here in part to help editors improve the encyclopedia. Blocking good-faith non-disruptive, however misguided, editors, is exactly opposed to this mission. I am directly opposing, rather than first raising a discussion, because I think that my concerns, which are long-term behavioural concerns, will be pertinent even if Coren acknowledges them. I would support a future request for adminship if Coren demonstrated a sustained change in behaviour when interacting with editors. --Iamunknown 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, it took a number of editors to settle down Mattisse when the feathers got ruffled. Coren has worked on the CSB templates to make them as non-accusatory as possible, assuming good faith as is his obligation. -- But|seriously|folks  02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As someone tangentially involved in the Mattisse issue, I would encourage all those unfamiliar to read all of the talk pages involved before coming to a conclusion. I was one of the editors trying to discuss the situation with Mattisse, and found it to be an extraordinarily exasperating experience. Mattisse later apologized for her reaction, which I appreciated. I must agree with Bsf above that the templates are abundantly clear and exhibit an extraordinary amount of good faith that was discarded in the incident at hand. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am confused by your last sentence, "I must agree ... in the incident at hand". Could you clarify? --Iamunknown 03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll try: Mattisse was the one to assume copious amounts of bad faith and to disregard the general good-faith nature of the templates that CSB left, rather than Coren. I felt your comment implied the opposite. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   When a user gets 4 warnings for creating inappropriate articles as well as various other warnings for removing speedy deletion tags and makes no effort to respond to the concerns brought up by other editors, a "you will be blocked" warning is appropriate. Just because a user is repeatedly violating policy in good faith does not mean that they cannot be blocked if they refuse to learn from what others are telling them or don't try to communicate with other users. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree that a good-faith editor may end up being blocked. I disagree, however, that a very new good-faith editor should be blocked, and I think it very telling when someone threatens to block a newbie for good-faith contributions. --Iamunknown 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If they don't respond to complaints and continue to create pages against policy, what do you suggest? Mr.Z-man 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. Staggered as I was to see W.marsh nominating someone with nothing not a lot in the article writing arena, one can only imagine my suprise at how the nominator glosses over C:CSD errors with "nothing in the last 500 except one". Reviewing the last month or so brings us; this was declined by the nominator as was this ?!?!? On balance the rest looks okay, but I'm worried that your nominator ignored CSD errors as the declining admin, I see nothing in mainspace, and my oppose at your last RfA has basically just moved down to neutral due to less errors but not much improvement. Sorry, because you bot is ace. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess what is left out is that Coren and I spoke by e-mail about those two taggings on 10/15... in the last 500 edits since then, which were the ones I checked... everything seems very proper in terms of taggings. --W.marsh 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Alas, I do not have access to your e-mail conversations, and can only go by the contribution history on e.wikipedia. Sorry, but it's not an oppose. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I know, I'm just explaining my behavior, which you (justifiably) questioned. I talked to Coren and said I didn't feel it was time for an RFA until he indicated he could follow deletion policy more carefully... I guess I could have asked for more than a month of a trial run, but I don't have a very long attention span :-) --W.marsh 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's nothing against yourself (clearly, as it's not your RfA!!) or Coren at all. I'm just still not comfortable to support, but I'm not convinced my evidence merits an oppose either. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Your concerns are noted, and I do take them to heart. Something I have once suggested as a general policy, but will apply to myself, is that I will not delete by A7 unless tagged by someone else already (but will, obviously, tag if I feel it is warranted). A7 is the most subjective of the CSD, and I understand that my "natural" evaluation tends to fall on the margin of where consensus lie. — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   An honest and genuine response, which is without doubt the kind I expect from candidates at RfA, indicating the measured and thoughtful approach I hope you will bring should/when you get the tools. Thank you.. Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral, leaning toward support Sorry, but cannot support you just yet as I found that some of your answers to my questions weren't exactly satisfactory, although quite close. However, since I do not have a reason to oppose, I'm sticking to neutral for now. nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Out of curiosity, may I ask which in particular? (I'm certain it would benefit the candidate, as well, to know.) Because I personally couldn't find fault with a single one and thought a couple of them were quite extraordinary. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Here, to be fair, I left another question...if the answer's to my liking, I'll reconsider. nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 01:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, I apologize if I gave a wrong impression, I wasn't asking you to reconsider, I was honestly wondering what answer(s) you felt was(ere) off base because I might need to reevaluate my own thinking on it. Sorry if what I was asking wasn't clear in my textual representation. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well if you put it that way...his answers are always close to what I was looking for in an answer to my questions, but I don't know why, his answer don't seem like they're "on the money", like he seems almost there but the key terms are sometimes missing, like, no offence, they're half baked. Like he seems to assume/presume what I'm trying to get at and being too specific on some points while missing others. I dunno, but the way and fashion he answered these questions just doesn't make me comfortable supporting this RfA. nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 06:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I can see where you're coming from on a few of the answers. Thank you for the response. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:39, 12 November 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.