Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Franamax

Franamax

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (88/29/11); Scheduled to end 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Franamax (talk · contribs) – Franamax started editing Wikipedia as a registered user in August 2007, and has amassed almost 12,000 edits since then, without the assistance of any special tools. His focus isn't on article writing, it's on helping others, as can be seen by his very significant contributions to several help desks and reference desks (see his top-10 pages here). He has also attempted the daunting task of mentoring a recently unblocked editor to try to help him become productive; it wasn't entirely successful for reasons outside of Franamax's control, but the effort was genuine. Franamax is active in assisting new editors, helps rescue articles with a twist, and never uses templates. On the side, he writes some nifty tools that you can check out on his userpage. He's commented wisely and calmly in several heated discussions within the project. Franamax will find it just a bit easier to do all these things with an expanded toolbelt. Risker (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Casliber

Risker sums it up well above. Franamax is a highly qualified candidate for whom an enlarged toolbox will be a net positive for the 'pedia. Calm and fair, I see no indication that he'd abuse the tools or lose his head, and he clearly has the 'pedia's best interests at heart. Calming admins are a big net plus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept the nomination, thank you both for your confidence in me. Franamax (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Aggh, I got all worried about providing a preamble, maybe that's just for self-nom's, decided to put it in anyway, then found a hidden comment telling me it's OK. So here goes: Added more, move over NYB and FT2! :)

Preamble by Franamax:
I have been editing for just over two years. My participation has been pretty much spread all over the place. The breakdown of my "most-edited" pages located here tells much of the story. I realized long ago that I'll probably never produce much in the way of featured content, at least on my own, though it remains a long-term goal. I find it difficult enough to write a single sentence. I may over-research, I end up fixing typos or links in other articles, I've just found it better to fetch water when I can for the people who produce the serious content. I enjoy wiki-gnoming, getting involved in project space when I feel I have a positive contribution to make, and lurking around various help desks. I try to maintain quality patrol on the ~1100 articles on my watchlist. I can't say I enjoy vandal patrol, but it's probably responsible for the bulk of my 11,000-some edits. Three of my top-15 articles are hair, fingernails, and a book I've never read - not my areas of expertise. :) I also have somewhat of a technical bent, so I've written a few utility programs such as the uContribs tool linked just above (they all badly need some updating) and set up my own test wiki where I can block myself - this has given me a better understanding of how the underlying software works. I do try to welcome new editors and help them out, but I must note that my typical experience there is that the new editor thanks me for being so kind and helpful, then NEVER EDITS AGAIN - so it's not necessarily a good thing when I show up on your page trying to help. ;) Also I try to help out at the WP:LIBRARY, mostly by trying to let other editors know that we have one, where you can get (and provide) copies of everything ever published on Earth. Did I mention that we have a great WP:LIBRARY? Franamax (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've held back for quite a while on trying an RFA. Among the "traditional" criteria for adminship, I've seen "has a need for the tools", "has created featured content FA/GA/DYK", and "has participated in traditional admin areas CSD/XFD/AIV/RFPP" - and on these, I got nuthin'. I have no need for anything from Wikipedia, it already gives me pleasure to help out here (although when I mentioned the "no need for the tools" rationale to an admin, they responded with "you need them so you can stop bugging us for obvious actions", which logic I found rather compelling). FA's? Unlikely. "Traditional" areas, only when I need them, but not as a focus. I think I can help as an admin because I've worked a bit in many areas, I think I have a pretty good grasp of how things get done, and I (hope I) can focus on resolving behavioural problems, helping to get disputes resolved and keeping editors focused on creating content. I don't mind putting in a bit of time to do some research and check underlying issues before coming to a decision. Franamax (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2009 (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: Very little to start with. I'll pick off the easy stuff, watch where the backlogs are, and adapt from there. Some things are fairly time-sensitrive, people who file AIV, RFPP, ANEW, generally are looking for timely responses (I certainly have been the few times I've gone there) - I would be watching those regularly. Some AN/ANI items could use in-depth looks, especially when there is a drama-fest flaring elsewhere. In the longer term, I'm interested in some of the more complicated areas, OTRS, SPI, AE, copyrights. These are places where I think stress levels rise among the admin corps, so I think they are where the help is needed. I would try to approach any of these areas with observation, research, and communication.; same as I always try to do. I want to work where I'm best able to help. Franamax (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

A: Cliche or not, pretty much all of them. I'm proud of spotting vandalism, especially the sneaky kind; I'm proud of at least trying to help newbies, even if they run off in screaming fits; I'm happy every time I find a source and {{cite}} it properly; I read Wikipedia articles every day just as part of my life and I get a kick out of fixing little problems while I learn; I especially value the few times where I've tried to find common ground and my proposed wording has actually been accepted. Every so often someone gives me a barnstar or compliments me on good wording or neutral attitude, and whatever I did to cause that would probably rank as my best contributions. Franamax (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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: I think that "conflict" is an emotional term, as in "I am in a conflict with this other person" - I always try to avoid getting that feeling. Now, spirited discussions? Heck yes, early, often and always. Debate and disagreement is part of life in the sausage factory, so long as I'm calling your ideas an idiot, not you yourself. And I don't mind you calling my ideas stupid either, it's not like I haven't heard that opinion expressed in the past. :)

For me, the first way to deal with stress is to tell myself "I am not the sole defender of this encyclopedia". Just sitting back for a while often produces good results as other editors chime in. There's also that stuff on the other side of the door, where that glowy thing in the sky is, and there are little birds flying around who really don't give a crap about my wiki-problems, they have problems of their own. A very good solution for stress is to watch the birds - now that is a stressful lifestyle, yet they just get on with it. In relative terms, I'm just fine. Obviously that might change somewhat as an admin, since I would have some extra tools - if I see direct and ongoing damage happening, rather than just reverting and/or reporting it, I would feel a need to act directly to stop the damage. All I can offer is to discuss my reasoning in a spirit of good faith..

I also try to stay guided by my own textbook example of how not to respond to stress. It can be found here, look downwards to the now-struck small text. That is a case where you can only get up the next day and combine making coffee with making apologies. Then you get to work on making sure it will never happen again.

Franamax (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

4. What does BLP mean? Should one ignore a rule dealing with a BLP? And, which articles have you interacted with in regards to BLPs? miranda 07:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A: BLP is our formal policy for treatment of living people, in articles and in all other page spaces. It recognizes that inaccuracies and misstatements can have a harmful impact on people's lives, and can expose the WMF and individual editors to legal risk. It also recognizes our ethical responsibility to "get it right" and "do no harm". BLP articles are subject to stricter standards of quality and accuracy than for, say, maple trees, where quality can be allowed to improve over time. We insist on using only accurate, well-sourced and relevant material in these articles and we make sure they are written in a neutral manner. It's really what we should do for all articles, except for BLP's it's a policy (I believe) mandated by the Foundation.

Invoking WP:IAR is no different for BLP's than anywhere else: does it help you maintain or improve the encyclopedia? If ignoring a rule violates the BLP policy, it's very unlikely that you are improving anything. As with any application of IAR, you should be able to explain your rationale, so if all you've got is "IAR said I could", you probably made a mistake.

I edit more in technical subjects, so I'm no expert with BLP's. Darko Trifunovic comes to mind, Fidel Castro, Marc Emery. It looks like I have 40 or 50 BLP's on my watchlist and I guess most of them aren't too controversial (although the three I just mentioned certainly are). Usually it's just standard vandalism, which I revert then take a look at the editor's other contribs. Franamax (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Ultraexactzz

5. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: I'm not sure 'crats were selected for that role, but I have no particular objection. I can't really envision the need for an undisclosed/privately disclosed alternate account, though I understand that there are some legitimate reasons people might need one. For an even smaller set of reasons, I could see where people wouldn't dare let even a single person know also.. I don't have any of those reasons, so I would just plan to state the cross-links on the user pages, .like I have for User:Franamin. For the record, other than that unused account and an IP edit I made the day before I registered, all my contribs have been made with this one account. Franamax (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional and entirely optional question from HJ Mitchell

6. What, if anything, would you do differently if your nomination was successful and how would the admin tools help you in your editing, whether or not this is different? Just as an example, while dealing with vandalism and vandals, would you be inclined to get involved with protecting, blocking etc?

A: I would do a whole lot of reading of AFD's, protection requests, CSD outcomes, to be sure I am up to speed on policy interpretations and start keeping an eye on admin backlogs for areas where I could help. I've also thought about writing a utility to check every couple of minutes on a "hot list" of things I want to keep an eye on and flag up new developments. Yes, as an example, I would be willing to use the tools when dealing with vandalism. For instance last week I was sending in oversight requests and writing an AIV report to get a spree stopped. I could have done the block myself and deleted the edits before asking for the oversight (which happened within minutes anyway, those guys are good). Also, I often see situations where an editor has been given a final warning, had time to read it, then kept on going. In those cases, a quick block is needed to reinforce the message that final warning means final warning. Franamax (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from AtheWeatherman.

Now I am going for the classics here. :) The reason being that you mention you will start in an area like AIV that you have experience in.

7. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: The difference is 18 points if you get the K on triple letter score. ;) They are really two sides of the same coin, if you're blocked, you're not supposed to be editing, so you're in effect banned for some period of time. Same thing when you're under some kind of ban (site, page, topic, etc.), you're not supposed to be editing around the ban, so in a way, you're blocked. Both terms refer to the need to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and once the risk of damage is gone, both can be lifted. And, they're a good way to get new editors confused about the terminology, which happens a lot.

For the more traditional answer, a block is a technical feature of the software that restricts the ability of users and/or IP addresses to make edits and create accounts. Blocks are made by individual administrators. Bans are more of a social construct, they are instructions to (generally named) editors to avoid various aspects of the encyclopedia, up to and including editing on the site at all. Bans can originate through community discussion, via ArbCom rulings, via ArbCom enforcement and the "no admin willing to unblock" scenario. Bans are enforced with blocks when necessary. Franamax (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

8. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: I can't think of a situation where I would place a block for the sole purpose of letting someone "settle down". That would require me to develop a theory about someone else's mental state, which is not my role (nor would I necessarily be any good at it). On top of that, last time I checked CDB's were still against policy. I've seen several people claim that CDB's happen all the time but I've yet to see even one single admin stand up and say "here is an example of a cool-down block I made once". Blocks should only be used to prevent damage you know is happening or very likely to happen, not as a paternalistic "trust me, this will be good for you" tactic. Of course, except for blocking a bot, every block is a cool-down block, since it gives the editor time to understand and modify their behaviour (or not). Franamax (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

9. Would you be willing to "work overnight shifts" monitoring Wikipedia if coverage was needed? If so, how frequently would you be available to do this?

A: Well, I'm on Pacific Time and I usually keep pretty odd waking hours, so that might fit the bill. When I have to work at a customer's site, things are different though. I've noticed comments that the number of available admins varies through the day, though I don't know what the pattern is. If that's what you mean, getting uniform coverage, then yes I'd be interested in helping out. The how frequently part I can't really answer, other than "as often as possible", sorry. Also I'm not available when episodes of The Simpsons are airing. :) Franamax (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Coffee

10. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A: Oh man, if I could opt out of a question, it would be this one. I think there is ongoing debate over whether BLP AFD's with no clear consensus should default to keep or delete. And if I recall, this became a large issue in the last few days, complete with debate over whether policy is prescriptive or descriptive. I wouldn't touch that AFD with a ten-foot pole in my first week as an admin, I would just try to engage in the discussion. However, I think your question is more oriented to "if I was the last admin on Earth and had no-one else to talk to about it", so in that spirit: it all depends. :) What is the quality of the article and its sources? Does it portray it's subject in a neutral light? Is it likely to "cause harm"? Will it's continuing presence harm the encyclopedia itself? I'm kind of an inclusionist, but in this hypothetical situation I presume we have two camps, one saying "well-sourced, subject is notable", the other saying "shaky sources, subject is not notable". Wow, I haven't even started my first day of work yet. :) I believe current guidance is "default to keep" but I would interpret that liberally with BLP's, I'm not averse to deleting minor notability articles if they're on the negative side, but I don't like the default-to-delete rule because it can be heavily gamed. In the scenario where at least one other admin survives on the planet, I would be over at their door asking "what do you think?". This is one of those things where editorial judgement gets mixed in with administrative judgement. For now, I'll just wait to see how the policy debate turns out, there's wayyy more experienced minds than mine debating this. Can I offer you some waffles? I just cooked up a nice batch. :) Franamax (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Leaky Caldron

11. In your answer to Q1 you implied that you would avoid the drama-ridden aspects of AN/I. If you came across 3 or 4 fellow admins. swarming around a relatively minor incident, all of whom were taking a particular line against an editor with a complaint; would you (a) join in, (b) walk on by and pick up a different issue or (c) step in with an alternate approach?

A: Well, early on in the !opposes, you can find a link to where I was one of a few people defending a controversial editor in a ban proposal, so it's just as likely that I'd be "(d) on the other side". ANI threads are always interesting, some go on for an hour or two with immense debate from the main parties, some get admin comment/action right away, some just get plain silly. In the case you describe, I would read over the AN/I case and the tenor of the remarks. If I felt I had something meaningful to add, or that more research might be helpful, I would do that. If I felt that someone was being unfairly badgered or wasn't able to adequately respond (language issues, say), whether it was the respondent or another admin, I would step in to try to refocus the discussion. Basically, how well is the situation being handled? If it seems to be going well, I could keep my big mouth shut and work on something else. If not, that "alternate approach" thingie sounds like something I might try. Sadly, when it actually gets to an AN/I incident, things have often gotten to a point where on-page discussion isn't really going to work. I think that in those cases, you need to go to an individual approach to get everyone skating for the same team. Did I just answer (c)? Franamax (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Juliancolton

12. Let's say you find a bit of nasty vandalism including personal information. What is the most appropriate way to resolve that?

A: Block the vandal and nuke the edits. Contact Oversight for an airstrike on the deleted edits that don't comply with policy. Go back and look at all of what the vandal has done. If it's an IP, investigate the netblock to see what other related IP's might be up to now. IP or registered user, what are they focussing on? Watch all that stuff. Do they look like a one-timer or is this part of an ongoing problem? If the latter, head over to where the checkusers live. At some point in there, depending on how fast this is happening, let the editor know that their conduct is unacceptable and give them a chance to change their ways, but divulging personal information about others is damage and needs to stop right now. We can talk later about how to edit right, but names and telephone numbers are no-go. I'm assuming here that this is an obviously bad-faith editor, not the kind who add agency names, addresses and phone numbers in innocently trying to improve articles. And if it's Willy or Hagger or the Tiscali disruptor, I would skip a bunch of those steps. Some vandals are schoolkids who've just been assigned a book in English class (viz. one of my most-edited articles, I really should read that some day ;) and they've just heard that anyone can edit Wikipedia so they go try it; some vandals are trying more sneaky ways to screw articles up, they need to be watched very carefully; and some are just out on a spree of destruction. I put your example into the latter class and I'd be willing to talk with them about the best way to edit, but the damage stops here and now.

Reviewing before placing my sig: is this old vandalism? In that case, I would take a much more relaxed approach, but still following the steps I've outlined above. Franamax (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Juliancolton

13. Two users on different sides of a predominately content-related dispute approach you separately and ask you to take action. Do you think it's more productive to block involved parties, apply less harsh measures such as page protection, or join in the discussion?

A: Well, my first choice is to tell them each, individually and maybe privately, to give their heads a shake and try to find a compromise. I'd point out the many noticeboards where they could go to get more eyeballs on the topic. 3O seems like one of them here, but maybe RS/N, FT/N, maybe projects too, but you need to check first on whether the project is really active. Then I need to look at the stability of the article and the tenor of the discussion. It's possible that I would need to protect the article page to push the dispute to the talk page. I'd rather not do that, I would likely try a "pretend" protection first, i.e. posting a notice at the talk page asking for a halt to active editing and a clear statement of the dispute and an outline of proposals for going forward. Blocking the editors would be a last resort, unless one or both were going straight off the rails. I've often found that if you offer an alternative to flat-out confrontation, people are willing to follow it. Now if I can get them back talking, the next thing is to ask for sources and proposed wording. Maybe they will agree between each other, with a little background prompting from me. Or maybe not. If I understand the material and/or I can read the sources online, I might jump into the content discussion. Of course, at that point I would shed my vaunted admin mantle and become an ordinary editor. Whichever way best facilitates discussion and resolution, that's the way I'll try for. If I do get involved in the actual content discusssion and one or both parties are still being unreasonable, then I need to go find someone else to cast a baleful eye on the situation. Franamax (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from 7107delicious

14 Suppose you are in an inconceivable situation, something like a legal threat, how would you deal with this when you put in your shoes as an administrator?----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten}

A: I'm not clear on your use of the adjective "inconceivable", since legal threats are not uncommon here. The standard procedure is to point the editor to our WP:NLT policy, explain to them that legal issues should be handled through WP:OTRS or directly with the WP:OFFICE (meet Mr. Godwin ;) and ask them to retract any legal threats on the public side of the site. If they refuse to do so, they are blocked. I see no reason not to follow that procedure. In a free society you have recourse to the courts at any time, but until you've resolved your legal issues, you can't edit. It's important to evaluate carefully though whether there is an actual legal threat, many people don't fully understand the strict meanings of "libel" and "defamation". Of course if they're saying "you will be hearing from my lawyer", it's pretty clear. Franamax (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

15. Have you considered your position regarding WP:Recall? Please set out your intentions.

A: Yes, I have considered it muchly. :) I personally think that voluntary recall (which I think is generally what you refer to) is a noble idea, but I don't remember having ever seen it actually work. In fact, it seems to devolve into a circus. Respect to Roux's question of a while ago, but the MBisanz one I thought was frivolous anyway, so that doesn't actually prove out the process. I would consider joining the process going forward, but the conditions I could copy (Lar's, Matt's e.g.) are hedged around too much and let's face it, if I set the conditions, I can game them endlessly. And especially if I can change the rules in the middle of the game or withdraw entirely, it just doesn't seem workable.

My guidance on this is from some verbiage I saw a while ago, paraphrased as "I just hope that I have enough sense that if 4 or 5 other admins who I respect come along and tell me I should give up the tools, then I will give up the tools". That's pretty much how I would proceed. I have great respect for quite a few other people here, and I hope that none of them would hesitate to let me know if I was doing wrong. Really, that's a large part of what you all are !voting on right now: it's partly whether I will do things right, but it's also whether I would stop doing things wrong.

The current desysopping process goes through ArbCom, for at least the last year it's worked pretty effectively from what I've seen. It won't satisfy every editor who feels hard done by, but no process ever will. But if I was named in an Arb case as an admin, I would feel rather more worried than if I was a normal editor. There is some extra scrutiny there as far sa I can tell.

Also, isn't there a community process still ongoing to revamp admin recall? I can't comment there, being twixt-and-tween, but obviously if a consensus emerges, I'm fine with whatever it is. (sorry for late response, for some reason this was in Notepad instead of here!) Franamax (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from JoJo

16 I want know what you will do about the incivility and snarky comments people are talking about. That is not good for admins. It will get you in trouble. Admins need be on best behavior. This first time I ask question at RFA, before I only voted. — JoJo • Talk • 18:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A: Well, I am aware that my style of communication can come across as rather sharp. That's easier to manage in person where you can see the reaction of the other person and mitigate your words immediately. Some people appreciate a blunt style, some don't. Some editors here would look at the examples that have been given and shrug, some, well obviously, you just have to read below... :)

I have been working on making sure that my posts can be read only in the spirit intended, it's really never my intention to upset anyone. The April incident I mentioned above was a pretty glaring exception and I have tried to learn from it every day since, to move to the other end of the spectrum. I think I've already done a pretty fair job, but it is an evolution and I will keep at it. I do agree with you that admin's have a special responsibility in that way, to stay calm, cool and polite. I just have to make sure it happens every single time. Franamax (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will think on this. — JoJo • Talk • 00:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Franamax: Franamax (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Franamax can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Extended analysis of selected edits is available at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b/Franamax 01Nov09. Franamax (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very ploddily making some comments, the first set addresses a few of the direct oppose comments, here on the talk page. Hopefully I'll be able to speak to the article contrib concerns before the (my) night is out. Franamax (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More at the talk page on article work can be found here. At the rate I'm going, I should be done three days after the RFA closes. :) Franamax (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Final comment from me here: I'm not a big fan of RFA thankspam and have no plan to send it out. For all those who participated here, my thanks for your interest and research. I've read and carefully considered every comment several times and will take on board the criticism expressed. Working at Wikipedia has been an enormous learning experience and I still have more to learn, which is a good thing. Thank you all! :) Franamax (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Let's get this party started right support as conominator. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - no doubt about it. Crafty (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. I've seen Franamax around and I have no concerns that the tools would be abused. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Good answers to questions - shows awareness of strengths and weaknesses. Am certain Franamax will make good use of the tools to improve the encyclopedia, and will continue to dispense excellent advice and help to others where needed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Good sense and judgment are the core components of a good administrator, and dedication helps a lot. Franamax has shown a level head. In particular his answer to the trap that is standard question 3 suggests Franamax hold himself in the proper regard. We are all better off when admins are cognizant of their own fallibility and ultimate insignificance in the grand scheme of things.--Tznkai (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Support as nominator. Risker (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Support I have seen Franamax's work over an extended period of time and have no issues with him being an administrator. MBisanz ^talk 06:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support Why not? -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 07:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC). Move to Neutral

8. My God, when I saw the name I literally thought "I see somebody's up for reconfirmation." Just one of those moments that makes you feel stupid you didn't realize they might not already be an administrator. I'll note that I've read through Durova's oppose - I'm still supporting, just keep an eye on your temper, OK? =) Master&Expert (Talk) 07:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Based on your track record, I believe it's fair to expect that you will make wise, considered decisions (and be willing to reevaluate should facts change or new information come to light). This is always a question of trust, and I believe you have the trust of the community. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   Given the benefit of almost a week of additional discussion, I wanted to reiterate support for this nomination. While I appreciate the position of most of those who are opposing due to what they perceive to be a lack of content contributions, I still subscribe to the viewpoint that this process should be one of trust: will User:Franamax abuse the additional tools we provide to administrators? There is nothing that leads me to believe that's a possibility. Further, having observed User:Franamax in a past content dispute, I do believe they have the ability to assess such disputes and serve as a catalyst in resolving difficult situations, which mitigates (for me at least) many of the opposes below. I don't know that we have any "perfect" administrators, but I do believe User:Franamax will be a good one, and I expect this process will simply provide some very helpful, very objective paths for continued improvement. user:J aka justen (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

10. Anything for Risker! <3 —Dark 08:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
11. As a potential nominator, I think Franamax knows where he will work and that is that. Just because he is not a content person does not reflect on his abilities as a janitor. ceranthor 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong support. Based on work I've done with Franamax, I believe he has great good sense and a thorough understanding of the Wikipedia environment. Personally, I hope to beguile him into some copyright work; after our collaboration on Wikipedia:Plagiarism, I know he's good for it. I've seen him debate. I was around for the conflict he linked above; I decided not to return to the conversation after this post, but I did see Franamax's later note, and I have not observed it to be characteristic of him. Finally, I heartily second Ceranthor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. Risker has it just right, I think - this candidate is involved in several tasks that a lot of admins won't touch, and that's a good thing. As noted, above, admins who will calm situations down, or who will attempt to do so, are a net positive for the project, and I believe that's the sort of admin that Franamax will be. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
14. I've read all the links and answers to questions, and there's nothing here that seems like a stopper. I don't need someone to have arrived at the end of their wiki-journey to pass RfA. Franamax has been very helpful on a number of occasions, and I like the answers to the questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Positive memories from working on WP:Plagiarism together. --JN466 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Tan | 39 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
17. weak support. I too would like to see more content work. At the end of the day, it's what matters at this place. Having some grounding in that will help you make the right decisions. henrik•talk 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Well suited for adminship. Nathan ^T 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Long-tenured editor, seems to be well-suited for the mop. GlassCobra 17:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Franamax is a trusted and helpful user, he'll make a good admin. Pikiwyn ^talk 17:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I too have seen Franamax's work over a long period of time and am confident he would be an asset as sysop.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Support despite the fact that the acronym in "has created featured content FA/GA/DYK" really seems like some kind of homophobic slur Keepscases (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    What in the world are you talking about? Protonk (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

    Nice catch! :) I never looked at it that way. Talk about systemic biases built in to featured content processes, you can't even mention them without getting into trouble! :) Franamax (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

25. Support He'll do fine. Humans lose their temper and he's done enough work that I'm not too concerned about limited audited content. Arguably Durova's oppose is the strongest of the bunch, but her followup inadvertently makes mincemeat of it. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. Reviewing contributions, no history of disruption, seems to be well versed in policies, and takes extreme care with every edit to get it right (including a flawless 100% edit summary record). The cynicism in me feels compelled to ask, “What's wrong with you?” but I will assume good faith. Lack of article development work bothers me only a little. • Anakin ^(talk) 23:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Support despite the supposed lack of article work, Franamax appears to be deticated to helping newcomers and anyone else that needs help. The user has also stated that s/he will help out the huge backlog problems that plague many pages on Wikipedia. That is a huge + for me. You've got my !vote.--Coldplay Expert 23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - Generally I want to see some evidence of actual content work, I don't expect much, you seem to have done enough for me. I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the complaints about being argumentative, but nothing strong enough for me to oppose. Your work has been great and I admit that I'm also swayed by the nominations as well. -- Atama頭 00:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Definitely. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. I've found Franamax to be a very helpful editor willing to lend a hand to another. I think the mop would be in good hands. HJMitchell You rang? 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. As above. Friendly, helpful editor, and an asset to wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
33. support I would normally be somewhat reluctant to support without more actual content work, but for this candidate I;ve observed the quallty of the other work, and it seems clear that the tools will be used properly, and that the general Wikipedia knowledge is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. You'll do just fine. Keeper | 76 04:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Prevailingly sensible. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
36. Support fair minded fellow and a peace maker, as shown by the very diverse group of editors from all spectrums who support him above. I am also impressed by his negotiation talents. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Support without equivocation. Franamax has been one of the most welcoming and level-headed editors I have ever seen. His knowledge of Wikipedia is superior. He would be a tremendous asset as admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

    Hi, I'm indenting your vote, as IPs can't vote in RfAs. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

    Unindented... forgot to log in. Oops. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

38. No problems here. AtheWeatherman 10:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Knows the difference between user-generated content and plagiarism, and will be able to assist in copyright issues. The "diffs" cited in the oppose should be read in context; they were part of a robust, give-and-take discussion. They are not indicative of a likelihood to abuse administrative powers. Kablammo (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
40. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
41. Belated and negligent Support. I once offered to nom Franamax, and then I got busy, and that fell through the cracks (I'm embarrassed). I am usually here supporting top content contributors because they are the editors I know best; in spite of his low content contributions, his input on plagiarism and his dedicated work in the software area are worthy of support. I'm unconvinced by the opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No issues. Diffs given in oppose section seem to be exceptions, rather than the norm, in terms of Franamax's attitude/self control. Fribbler (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
43. Weak support. While the article percentages are a bit disappointing, that alone should not disqualify you. Make sure to keep a level head in disputes. Opposes are noted, but I think there is a net gain here. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
44. Per nom, I don't write articles. Doesn't mean I don't do other stuff, or understand or appreciate the stress involved. Doing anything serious is stressful. Keegan (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Suggest that you add quality content to your editing repertoire in the future...Modernist (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
46. Adminship is not an award for article writing. Article writing has nothing to do with being an admin. I don't see the real issues raised by others as serious, so, I support. Majorly talk 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
47. Support The tools that he devises are helpful, as is he. He's also one of the few Wikipedians I've met in person, so I can vouch that he's a good sort. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
48. Support I believe this person will make a good additional to the Wikipedia staff of administrators. Dream Focus 02:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
49. Support 12,000 edits??? Holy guacamole Richmondian (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    Please note that edit count is almost irrelevant to an editor's capabilities. I have over 100k edits and, hey; look at me. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    Haha, SUPPORT JULIANCOLTON! :) really if someone does 12,000 thing and care about making this place good give em whatever honorary title they want? Richmondian (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

50. Weak support BejinhanTalk 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
51. Support—Good combination of content editing and process, tools. Tony (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I don't see anything that makes me think Franamax will misuse the tools. Also the answer to question 10 made me smile. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
53.  Support Good Luck. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
54. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
55. Seen him around doing the right thing and not breaking stuff. IMHO the opposes are only peripherally related to run-of-the-mill administrative work. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
56. No reason to expect abuse. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
57. We need more admins protecting copyright and fighting plagiarism on WP. (And, for people who might be worried that an anti-plagiarism admin would be too deletion-happy and drive away new contributors... well, from my experience Franamax is much less unforgiving with copied text than I am, and has shown willingness to work with new editors and help them fix articles and stuff, not just delete on sight.) Lack of article experience doesn't concern me, there's more to this encyclopedia than just writing articles—maintaining articles, and maintaining the policies that help us maintain them, is also important. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
58. Waffle Induced Support - Franamax made a good, thought out answer to question 10. The fact is BLPs need to have extra special care given to them, that other articles don't typically need. And there are a good amount of editors who don't see this. It looks as though Franamax has been a good contributor thus far to Wikipedia, even if he hasn't gotten anything to GA or FA status. It's been my opinion for a long time that an editor doesn't need any huge article work to be able to use the tools. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - the occasional minor snarkiness doesn't seem to be reflective of the entire sum of contributions, and a consistent dedication to the tedium of anti-vandalism is worth supporting with some additional tools. In my view the reason why admins should show proficiency with article work is (a) to demonstrate they have an understanding of how the editing rules work in practice as opposed to simply reading the policy pages, (b) to show they are first and foremost here to build an encyclopedia, and (c) to indicate they have some appreciation of the attachment good-faith contributors have to their work and therefore the sensitivity to address concerns re those contributions without unnecessarily offending people. Franamax has comparatively little article-building experience, but the extensive contribution record over the years satisfies me about (a), having regard for the anti-vandalism efforts I have no especial reason to doubt (b), and there are enough testimonials about co-operation with others that I am at least tolerably happy with (c). Others might disagree, but I can't see anything that would disqualify Franamax from adminship, and I see a fair bit that supports the contention that he would continue his good work with the aid of a couple of extra buttons. As a postscript though, feel free to do more content work in amongst your other useful activities. :) Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
60. Support per nom and co-nom, and with the expectation that the user's rougher edges will be sanded down a bit as an admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Concerns by opposers about lack of content contributions is worrisome but there seems to be enough that I'm willing to give him the tools. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
62. Support I usually like to see solid content work by potential admins but I'm willing to make an exception for an otherwise fully qualified candidate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Seems to be organised well enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
64. S+1 Power.corrupts (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
65. As Spartaz before me, I trust Franamax.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Franamax being an admin will be an overall net positive to the project.--kelapstick (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
67. Weak support Franamax seems to be trustworthy and is unlikely to misuse admin tools. The discussions/diffs linked by Gordonrox24 and Robofish are slightly concerning, but the positives outweigh the negatives enough for me to support. snigbrook (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. No issues at all with this candidacy. I'm sure that Franamax will make good use of the tools and we need more admins with his dedication and common sense. hydnjo (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
69. Weak Support: You seem to spend too much time feeding trolls. Constructive Edits instead of wasting even one moment with those users would be good. Civility issues raise concerns. However, you have done good work and I believe your weaknesses will be remedied. If you view this AfD as a "teachable moment" you will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
70. Strong support. I've seen far worse incivility from many of the people who have presented diffs here and, due to the concerns over mainspace editing, I found plenty of high quality article work and contributions that help our project grow. Esse quam videri. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
71. Support I'm impressed with the way you have handled this RfA, as well as with your reasonable considerations of the points raised in oppose. My feelings stand, but I don't see them getting in the way of you performing the type of admin duties that you want to be involved in, so those concerns are moot. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
72. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never even been accidentally blocked, but mainly per WP:AGF, i.e. no memorable negative interactions between us. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - The page at User:Franamax/Igorberger convinced me he can do the day-to-day work of adminning, which requires a lot of diplomacy. He showed great patience with this editor, and (at least in this case) remained civil where it must not have been easy to do. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
74. Support As A Nobody says, two years on wikipedia, no blocks, no significant negative interactions. Add a general feeling that the editor will be a good work-a-day admin, throw in a dose of AGF, and you get why the heck not! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
75. Support. -- ISLANDERS27 06:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Franamax is a fine Wikipedian with a sense of humor. I don't see any problems here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Lack of content building is a problem. But giving Franamax the bit is still very likely to have a positive net effect. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
78. Support (switched from Oppose): on further consideration, and having read Franamax's comments on the talk page, I think I was being unfairly harsh to him. There really isn't enough evidence of civility to oppose over, and he's provided considerable evidence that the vast majority of his interactions with other users are friendly and helpful. There's no reason to think he's 'presenting a facade of civility', rather than actually being civil - that was a failure of WP:AGF on my part. Robofish (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
79. Support regards, Huldra (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Some of the oppose comments concern me, some do not, but I think on balance, you'll be a good addition.--SPhilbrickT 01:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
81. Weak Support. I am concerned about civility but I'm willing to forgive the diffs presented by Durova as they are from over a year ago and focus instead on the good Franamax has and could do for wikipedia. Net positive. Valley2city^‽ 04:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
82. Support I would have likely passed on !voting on this RfA had it not been for the noms. Not that I had reservations, just that I hadn't researched it. I'm not really concerned with any of the "content" issues, as there are plenty of tasks that need to be taken care of here. Durova has brought up something I do feel strongly about however. If this is successful, I would urge Franamax to exercise great caution in how they phrase things. Not that I see any WP:NPA in what I read, and I don't have a problem with calling it like you see it, but civility is a very subjective thing here - and I think admins need to take care to always stay well clear of testing those boundaries. All that said, I appreciate all your work and dedication here - and I think that you can aid the project with the couple extra abilities that come with the bit. I support this RfA. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  05:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Our raw written words are often open to misinterpretation -- especially on a international site like WP. Therefore, we Assume Good Faith on individual phrasing, and read one another's comments within the context of the discussion. In my review of Franamax, I found that their overall thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss far outweighed any perceived bluntness of particular phrases. They have been a positive contributor for two years -- and I expect will be the same as an administrator. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
84. Strong Support Content contributions are important, but so are other skills. We should have a diversity of administrators and Franamax is highly talented and trustworthy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
85. Support per SandyGeorgia. Also admins don't need to have FAs or GAs, and it would be a very retrograde step if RFA did require them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
86. Support: I read through the opposes and was leaning towards the same sentiments until I read Franamax's answers to the questions and his comments on the talk page. I think his behaviour in this RfA has been exemplary, considering the nature of some of the opposes, and I appreciate his sense of humour and his ability to express himself well. As has already been pointed out, Franamax's vandalism watch goes deeper than most and involves investigating and sorting out the kind of "border-line" edits that a lot of Hugglers just ignore. However, I admit to not being a fan of the sometimes brusque attidue and the somewhat argumentative/confrontational nature of his more questionable posts. I'd like to see him think thrice before clicking "save page" at any drama board; there, less really is more. Maedin\^talk 14:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
87. Support I was on the fence for a while, considering the civility concerns brought up below, but in reading the answer to question 16 above, since Franamax is not arguing "I did nothing wrong" or "I talk the way I talk and I don't care if anyone takes offense" as we have seen too many times in admins, I think he will be a fine admin and won't break the Wiki. I just hope he follows through and does carefully consider his words in all future disputes. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
88. Support. A good editor. Content creation isn't for everyone & nor need it be. Nancy ^talk 17:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. Appears to have done little or no serious content work. Among his most heavily edited articles,[1] he made 77 edits to an article that remains stub-class with only two references, after 65 edits to another it remains tagged for multiple issues with only four references, and one more of his top ten most edited articles is list-heavy and tagged for cleanup. Also, conduct issues in admin board discussions: less than six weeks ago Franamax wrote "Well yeah Floydian, not to put too fine a point on it, but I really do think it's time for you to shut up now;"[2] going back farther, comparing experienced editors to Stalin,[3] writing "bullshit...put up or shut up",[4] and raising accusations of "collective hysteria" when consensus doesn't go his way.[5] No editor needs the tools to be productive at the reference desk and with mentorship; he doesn't have the right experience or temperament for the bit. Durova³⁵⁵ 05:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   In regards to the most heavily edited articles, a quick peek at the contribs will show that Franamax has been fighting vandalism on those articles.[6][7][8] All of us are to blame for the state of those articles; Franamax has done his bit by stopping them from degrading. Please take a little more time to review a candidate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   About two years ago I told him he could get ten mainspace edits a day by watchlisting a bunch of articles and reverting routine vandalism. Which is well and good as part of an RFA presentation, but in two and a half years it looks like that's all he's done--never sitting down to really build an article. Have taken plenty of time to review this candidate and stopped talking to him after it became apparent that his priorities were to get on good terms with all the right people. He was cultivating me--interrupting my featured content drives to ask trivial questions as excuses for chitchat, and talking about everything under the sun except the mainspace. And it's worrisome to see how he treats the people he doesn't cultivate. This website is Wikipedia, not Wikifriends. MySpace is thataway. Durova³⁵⁵ 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   had the editor been here for only a few months, i would be inclined to accept this argument. But there's been good work over a much longer period. This is not somebody out to get the admin bit as a trophy. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   "going back farther": September 2008, September 2008, September 2008, all three over a year ago. Ikip (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   Just for the objective record, I've checked over my gchat archives and as near as I can tell, from Oct07 to Jan09, Durova and I conducted 48 chats, 37 of which were initiated by Durova. These chats comprise around 12,300 lines of dialogue, so yeah, there is a bit in there that you could describe as "chit-chat". :) Durova is of course entitled to speak her own opinion of me, but I would prefer that she not allude to incorrect conclusions about the nature of the relationship. Franamax (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   He appeared at first to be someone who was shy and in need of advice about Wiki procedures and dynamics. I take extra time for that kind of person. Most editors move on and function on their own, but Franamax's principal activity was befriending prominent Wikipedians without actually doing any major work in mainspace. His conduct in administrative discussions can be rude and dismissive (two examples should be enough; this is RfA not RfC). It was like something out of a Dale Carnegie playbook. As the months wore on this became tiresome and I lessened contact. By the end he was literally inventing excuses to resume chatting: asking trivial questions about copyright which, when questioned, he admitted he knew where to find the answers and wanted pretexts to chat. I finally described the featured content drives he was interrupting and asked him to contribute substantive content of his own; he hardly sought me out since. Durova³⁵⁵ 18:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   I think you've got this one completely wrong, but then, your relationships with other editors may differ from mine. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   Continued discussion of this !vote moved to the talk page. Risker (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. Not enough article work, sorry. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
3. +O As one who has long held the torch for "more content required" in RfAs, I am here to tell one and all that that argument is unquestionably irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is an online community. No content work required, except to the extent that one needs to be familiar with how to edit an article, and has been around long enough to know the rules and norms of behavior. I hope I can persuade others to drop their O's if that is all the prob they see. Franamax has been around long enough to know how to edit etc... OTOH, I oppose on temperamental grounds. I'm not at all on board with Risker's "wisely and calmly" comment. In my exp., Franamax is argumentative. Not well-suited for the bit. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   A lot of arguments on wiki tend to be associated with article content disagreements. It's nice for me to know if the candidate is familiar with GA/FA processes and can handle the "stresses" of the procedures. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   No. Content disputes suggestions are never legal commandments. Ever. Admins only made suggestions on the reliability of sources or mediate disruptive editor behavior in regards to article content. Both of those use judgment and logic and have nothing to do with article edit count. Not all editors spend time in all areas of Wikipedia, nor are they required to. See WP:AAAD where it highly discourages statements like yours ever be made. As someone who will never have a huge number of new articles or high number of edits versus what I do in XfDs, RfC and other general discussion, it's insulting to think that I'd be automatically disqualified from even a single vote of an RfA because of that. It's this kind of mentality that scares away candidates who don't mind spending their volunteered time in some of the less "glamorous" areas of the community. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   All I was saying was how I wanted more content contributions. End of story, thankyou. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose per WP:BITE. When I first started editing, I made an obviously stupid moved and Prodded an article. Instead of being redirected and helped, I just got grief. It would be a lie to say that I handled the situation well, I can honestly say that I was probably acting like a bitch, but I think that If I was in franamax's shoes now, and saw a new editor behaving like I was, I would have tried a little nicer to be helpful. Also per his augmentative attitude. A while back, a user asked me why the time stamp in my signature was in bold. I didn't have an answer, and responded with a question of my own. The user who I was communicating with was fine with this, yet Franamax was not satisfied and had to get his unneeded two cents in. All of this is saved in my talk page archived.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   Just a comment; I don't see anything WP:BITEY about the conversation saved in your talk pabe with Franamax regarding the tagging of pages. He wrote out several paragraphs explaining why what you were doing wasn't the best way to improve the encyclopedia, and you responded in a snarky manner. From what I can see there, he conducted himself as a good administrator would. Are there diffs you can point to where he actually was bitey, that aren't in that talk page archive? Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW, I don't see any real reason to try to elucidate this oppose. It's more a testimonial on why one might oppose Gordonrox for a future RfA and not why Franamax wouldn't make a good admin. Anyone who takes the time to read the referenced conversations in the talk archives will probably come to this same conclusion. Tan | 39 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   As I said, at the time I was new, inexperienced, and being a dick. I as a new user, was just surprised that he didn't just remove the prod tag, and let me know kindly why he removed it. That being said, I cannot say that I was being appropriate either. My main concern really lies here. Overall, I think he is a good editor, and contributions look great, but I think he is a tad to argumentative for the position of administrator. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   Well, for what it's worth, I think Franamax's rant on your talk page is very elitist. Long-time users and admins haven't "earned the right" to have unusual signatures. It shows that Franamax's attitude toward being an admin is all wrong. I was on the fence for this, but this has convinced me to oppose. I also think your flippant behavior was inappropriate, but that's not particularly relevant here. Gigs (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose I don't like your answer to the BLP. BLP is a policy which should be treated with extra caution. Also, your lack of article work and experience with CSD, AIV, etc. will not help when you are called to mediate disputes or block users. miranda 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose not enough content work YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Franamax isn't someone with whom I have a major problem, and is certainly dedicated to the project. What tips the scales for me is a combination of two things. 1) The sentiments expressed here, as well as the nomination by User:Risker, with whom I associate the type of thinking driving such a comment. To be honest, I see Risker Lite. Now, the fact that I disagree with Risker on a few points shouldn't be damning to you, and it isn't. I do, however, see your comment (and a number of others like it) as a dangerous combination of naive and dismissive. An anonymous project should be inherently suspicious of anyone who wishes to wield extra powers over the rest of the community. More to the point, anyone who wishes to wield said powers should be sensitive to the need for all of us to be mindful and respectful of such suspicions. AGF of all users, unless they attempt to aquire buttons that can block you or delete your articles. User:Chzz went down in flames earlier this week because an appearance of impropriety arose at his RfA which he attempted to shrug off with a defense that essentially asked the community to AGF. Had a specific, and apparently accidental edit not been made in the RfA itself, none of us would have been the wiser. Incidents like this, regarding respected RfA candidates, newly minted admins, and even the occiasional member of ArbCom do happen. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   So we should oppose this RfA because he might have something to hide? Crafty (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying, Hiberniantears. The candidate made an argument opposing a specific proposal to require certain candidates to publish personal details. This disqualifies them from adminship how? - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not saying Franamax has anything to hide. I'll also state that I don't think Franamax has anything to hide. I am, however, saying that we need to have admins who balance AGF with a reasonable scepticism of anonymous users. You can AGF without trusting someone. This is the reason we make everyone pass through metal detectors at airports, and not just the sketchy looking individuals. I think this RfA will pass, so I'm not uncomfortable registering my opposition to a specific line of thinking from a candidate who I think will probably turn out just fine. I'm hoping RfA is still a forum for helpful discussion, and not pure voting (in other words, I mean this less as a vote against, so much as a suggestion). Hiberniantears (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   Hiberniantears, I am sorry to say this, but I do take exception to an oppose that is based on an edit where the candidate is strongly supporting one of the founding principles of the Wikimedia Foundation. An RFA for an individual editor is not really the place to debate proposed changes to WMF policies. Risker (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, confused, or some combination of the two, but I don't think this has anything to do with any of the founding principles. Which one, specifically, do you think my oppose is in contrast to? Aside from that, I'm really not trying to be pointy... I just think I see an editor who is advocating a relatively naive view of the Wikiworld. I think the same thing about you, but this shouldn't be misconstrued as a lack of respect for Franamax as a Wikipedian. I don't see any evidence that Franamax acts in a maner contrary to the principles. I do see a moderately Myspace-ish editor who appears to parroting what they think will help them climb here, and mixed with that I come away with a sense that this is also an editor who is either naive or not entirely honest about their views. I know it sounds crazy, and I'm not one to make (that many) strange opposes. When I do oppose, it is because something just doesn't sit right with me. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   That would be "The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration", which goes along with not being forced to identify to the WMF or any other entity unless one is seeking access to privacy-related tools. If you want that policy to change, it would have to be at the Foundation level, because the Foundation is the only level that has the requisite security (and protection for the receivers of information) to accept private personal information. Speaking as an arbitrator, I would not want to be responsible for retaining that kind of information for the 1600+ current administrators. Both Franamax (who has his own test wiki) and I are very familiar with the checkuser tool and, simply put, the only people it would catch at RFA are those who aren't smart enough to put their socks in the drawer for a few months before the run. I'd hardly call that a naive view; indeed, it's more of a jaundiced one. Risker (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   I respect your view of this, but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the scope of that rule, which really only states that anyone is free to edit anonymously. Everyone isn't free to edit anonymously (by virtue of not being able to edit at all on protected pages). Beyond that, I'm not in favor of running a CU on anyone who comes through the door. I'm merely saying that it is one tool in a larger toolbox, and you don't throw away your screwdriver just because you can't build an entire house with it. Overly aggressive dismissal of this position is what I regard as a quality that leads me to oppose the candidate. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   I've had a change of heart, and am moving to support. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   #Oppose User looks like a vandal checker and reverter, can't really see a need for more tools, I also agree with the comments, that you need to add some content to the wikipedia to understand it. Also, dispute resolution, are there any links to disputes the candidate has helped to solve? Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Striking my comment and vote, it was unnecessarily harsh and a bit rude, sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry to bug, but that argument never sits well with me. The general symbol for an admin in WP is the mop. Not the pen and paper. An Anon can do article work. An anon account cannot use Twinkle or Rollback to deal with vandals and the mess they cause. Never have I been writing an article, and up and decided to report an editor to AIV. Only when I am reverting vandalism do I ever use my tools. Yes, content is needed. Without it there is no chance for success (we are building an encyclopedia here) but I still don't like it when people oppose because the editor is not an award winning author. (Take note that I opposed this RfA, so it's not like I am trying to swing votes)--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   I was just looking at your RFArationale , only 3 months experience and at least 2000 edits? I like to see more experience in multiple areas, like dispute resolution, and content creation as in adding content you gain a lot of experience in the way of the wiki and in forming consensus and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Quality content work is a requirement for me. (more info) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Agree that familiarity with the problems of content work is a prerequisite, as many disputes, requests for blocks, etc., have a content issue at the core. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Seems to think that well-established users and adminstrators should get special treatment, because they've "earned that right". [9] Gigs (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose per lack of content work as outlined by Durova.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 04:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose I'd like to see more focus on content, since we're here to build an encyclopedia. Spend some more time in article space and less in Wikipedia space, and I'll be happy to support next time, should this fail. AniMate 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose per nom. His focus isn't on article writing -- gee, I thought that's what we were supposed to be doing here. I don't expect admins to have FAs and GAs under their belt. But I do expect them to have enough experience with actual content to give them an appreciation of what it's like for those in the trenches. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose move from neutral per above (lack of content building, and civility issue), and his brief mentorship of User:Igorberger as well as others. When his mentee resumed his old habits to Hummus, his presence was strongly required at Talk:Hummus, but he was absent and dramas were going on. Not do I claim that the candidate were a terrible mentor, but when his engagement was required, he was not there. I'm not also happy about the fact that one of his most edited articles is Marc Emery[10] and his rather misleading edit summary and blanking of a properly cited source[11] is also questionable in my view. (okay, I may be biased and I was shock to know the presence of WP:WikiProject Cannabis within Wikipedia today).--Caspian blue 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    Seems there was plenty more to that story, that several editors agreed with in difference with an IP, and you've only presented one part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    You also present one part since the current version does not favor your presented side and the citation still sits there.[12] Rather I pointed out the questionable "blanking" of the citation by the candidate, not about the "wording". Due to the recent fiasco regarding how some admin's personal taste on proactive substances, I would like to be more careful about that issue.--Caspian blue 21:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not going to argue your oppose-- only point out that the issue was not as black-and-white as your diff implied. Follow the remaining diffs through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    I already did follow "after and before the diff", so no thanks for the lecture. This is not a black-and-white case as you insist because his blanking of the citation with the misleading edit summary is not the matter of one story or the other .--Caspian blue 21:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    No lecture intended. I pulled up that source, and since it looks like a letter to the editor, it took me quite a while to determine it wasn't. A mistaken edit summary of almost two years ago? Amended, it is a letter to the editor, and the removal was correct. By the way, it didn't source the entire sentence, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    I feel you unnecessarily badgered me, so I clarified my stance with the "no thanks" message. Not a almost two years ago since it happened in February, 2008. Your spent time is your matter, so don't complain about it. As looking through his contribution to the article, I can see that he shows a certain POV, so yeah, I picked the diff with the note in parentheses. So *good bye*--Caspian blue 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    I sincerely apologize if my three sentences felt like badgering, but it's only fair to the candidate to tell the full story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, it *is* a letter to the editor[13], and as such does not belong as a reference source in the lead sentence of an article. Risker (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    Letter from an authority, so I disagree.--Caspian blue 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    I've raised additional concerns about this oppose on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Durova's diffs. Civility is key for an admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose feel that admins need more than trivial article work. Admins apply WP policies to articles that people care about, and have sweated over. I want an admin to have cared about an article to improve it significantly.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose – user needs more mainspace work and content-building/maintenance. Knowing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is one thing; applying them is another. Having such experience gives you firsthand experience in how to apply said policies and guidelines. MuZemike 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Per Durova. We simply can't tolerate admins who can't edit without being civil to other editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose. However, I think your answer to the question about BLP is thoughtful. Bwrs (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose As per Durova's diffs. Repeatedly telling people to "shut up" suggests an immature temperament. Warrah (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose (switched from Neutral) - as I said below, the lack of article work doesn't bother me, but reading through Franamax's contribs, I just have a slightly bad feeling about this user - like he tries to present a civil and helpful facade, but can in fact be quite incivil sometimes, as seen in Durova's diffs and here [14]. He might well pass this RFA, in which case I hope to be proved wrong, but I just don't quite feel confident enough in him to support. Robofish (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose since we need fewer admins with anger problems, not more. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Seems to feed the popular trolls too much. Expanding articles instead of wasting even one moment with those people would be great. However, even if your attitude does improve and you avoid these folks, it's clearly been shown that just one of them can pull enough weight and influence to make sure you never gain adminship. I can be swayed, but they won't. Sorry. Vodello (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

    A most perceptive oppose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose I've been on the fence on this one for some time, but I'm not comfortable supporting for several reasons. For one, the civility issues raise red flags. Also, in an odd juxtaposition with some other oppose votes, I see a lack of Wikipedia-related contributions in areas where you will use the tools. You participate in about one deletion debate per month, your last posting on DRV was in 2008, and you have only made three edits to AIV in 2009. I understand that you can't be everywhere at all times, but I don't really have a feel for your interpretation of our policy or a sense in when it is proper to block or delete and I'm not comfortable supporting until I do. ThemFromSpace 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose, concerns about temperament and civility, and lack of content work experience. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose There are way too many concerns here, not the least of which is civility. Reviewing Franamax's history, it seems to me that he has something of a short fuse and a penchant for sarcasm. The diffs highlighted by Durova and his brief mentorship of User:Igorberger demonstrated that, in my opinion. While Igor was stunningly clueless, I personally think Franamax was overly sarcastic and too quick to lose his temper in dealing with him. He also seems rather argumentative. he other concern, of course, is Franamax's lack of experience in content work. I wouldn't hold a lack of DYKs, FAs, or GAs against a user, but a lack of almost any article-writing experience at all (two articles created, most contributions in article space are vandalism reversions) really concerns me. Article-writing is what Wikipedia is about; while Franamax's activities serve an important function here, I'm concerned that his lack of article-writing experience might result in a lack of appreciation for the problems faced by those who do write articles. Even ignoring the lack of experience in the mainspace, there's the whole issue of lack of experience in administrative areas of the Wikipedia namespace, which Franamax readily admits in his preamble. Franamax says he'd be dipping his toes into these areas once he gains adminship; I say, why should we grant adminship to someone who'd be mainly learning on the job? This is not to say that Franamax would be a poor administrator – I think he can be trusted not to abuse the tools – but I don't think he's got enough experience for the job, even with 12,000 edits. As others have said above, you don't need these tools to be a vandalism-reverter, nor do you need them to work the reference desk or the help desk, nor even to mentor users. Sorry, but I oppose. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose Not quite ready yet. Some more article work needed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose Sarcasm and strong opinions are not the real problems to me, to be honest. Wikipedia needs more experienced contributors to articles as admins, not more police types as admins. I am sure that with a solid base of article contributions and article creation in the future, it would be a support down the line. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose - Civility concerns, also would like to see more of an effort with content. Nothing teaches the vital basics of Wikipedia like working to upgrade an article. I realize with the vote currently at around 75% that mine is a crucial ballot, but after reading through the Rfa I must conclude that there is not enough of a case made for this editor having the tools. There is good work in the resume. Suggest another try in six months or so; with a sincere effort to address the concerns expresed here, an Rfa will be easier going. Whatever the outcome, good luck. Jusdafax 03:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Very strong oppose as per Durova's diffs and per WP:BITE. I absolutely refuse to support an editor who, to put it straight, tells another editor "I really do think it's time for you to shut up now." That is immature and selfish. Good luck. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 05:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Not to badger, but have you looked on the talk page here where I explain the context? Floydian and I were both trying to help the same editor. That was as good-faith an edit as it gets, though I'll respect your opinion after reviewing it. Franamax (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for replying - yes I have reviewed that. However I feel there was a better way to handle that than frankly asking the user to "shut up now". Perhaps approaching that user with something like "please stop" or "let me handle this" would have been more acceptable. With that, I strongly appreciate your honesty, Franamax - enough I will move to neutral; though I still can not bring myself to support. I apologize. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose In deference to the concerns raised about lack of article experience, can I suggest you consider this WP:Admin_coaching and come back, more rounded, in a few months and you will likely sail through. Leaky Caldron 13:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    This recommendation strikes me as patronizing. I don't think editors have to game their contributions to pass RfA. Just edit whatever way catches your fancy and let the votes fall where they may. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    And oppose badgering strikes me as annoying. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    I don't want the candidate to take bad advice. Did I question the oppose vote? I did not. I questioned the advice. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Why anyone would conclude that using a perfectly legitimate educational programme amounts to gaming their contributions or is bad advice is beyond my comprehension. A majority of opposes here relate to concerns about content and WP:Admin_coaching directly references that concern. Anyway, in reality it’s up to the candidate to feel patronised, since you cannot be patronised on his behalf. Frankly, some thoughts are best left unsaid. Leaky Caldron 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    I am compelled to agree with LC and COM here seeing as my own advice was similar a few !votes above. LC's suggestion is polite, constructive and well-meaning. Jusdafax 14:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose. I would like to support...I really would...and maybe some day I can. But for now let's not take the chance. Content creators should have the luxury of occasional incivility, they have earned it, but admins should not. Failure to hold them to higher standards of conduct is one of Wikipedia's major deficiencies.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Leaning Oppose I'm not too sure. I'm going to have to take a closer look...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   Leaning oppose, but, I still don't know...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral with an ever-so-slight lean towards oppose Moved to oppose, see above [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral per Unionhawk. I will have to look at the user's contributions a little more before I make a real desision.--Coldplay Expert 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to support, the user through has gained my !vote.--Coldplay Expert 23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure whether I've ever met you before, or directly interacted with you, but the name sounds familiar and gives not good impression (I don't know why). The answers to questions are less satisfactory, so I'll be here for a while.--Caspian blue 05:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   I remember now. Move to Oppose.--Caspian blue 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   User looks like a vandal checker and reverter, can't really see a need for more tools, I also agree with the comments, that you need to add some content to the wikipedia to understand it. Also, dispute resolution, are there any links to disputes the candidate has helped to solve? Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Your name seems familiar but I haven't a clue how I know you. That is puzzling. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava, we have connected at least once before, here. Also, I don't know if you followed SandyGeorgia's analysis in the ACE2008 elections, but if you did then my name would be burned into your skull, as I was referenced for some statistical data here. In retrospect, I should have trademarked myself and included a "donate one-dollar now" link for myself. :) Franamax (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'll stay neutral for now - by the way, do you have one or two links to AfDs you were part of that were BLP related or were not landslides one way or another? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral for now - the lack of article work doesn't bother me, but I'm seeing a couple of edits that raise civility issues - [15] (already linked in the Oppose section above) and [16]. I'm prepared to put those down to isolated incidents though, and if I can't find anything else, I'll support. Robofish (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Switched to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Also neutral for now. Some of the diffs above raise concerns, but this user has many contributions, so still reviewing the whole picture. Jonathunder (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Seems like a nice guy with very respected nominators and reasonable answers to the questions. However, I don't think I'd be able to comfortably support given the concerns raised by some in the oppose section, namely Durova and Boris. Good luck regardless. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral Editor will likely do no harm but I did not like the answer with regards to BLP, the editor did mention that that is not his strong suit, but still as an admin he will be called upon to deal with problems there... RP459 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral the-closest-of-all to both supporting and opposing per Unionhawk.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 12:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Wait. Changed to ever-so-close-to oppose weak support per questions above.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 13:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral. Too many concerns raised above, not to mention the incivility. Sorry, FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
7. NeutralYou are Good and rude.Mr.Snoppy (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   — Mr.Snoppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral - Civility is the only concern I have. I don't think article writing is that important for adminship. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral: However much I'd like to say support, my POV is a bit off given my frustration of half the opposes speaking solely of lack of content. It's like a collection of things on the "what not to say" part of the RfA procedure guideline. Really, just go down the list. We might be here indeed by here to write an Encyclopedia, but the place can't run itself. If they want to dedicate themselves to the janitor part of being a janitor, how does that hurt everyone else? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Good editor, but I have temperament concerns. JamieS93 19:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
11. From neutral to strong oppose back to neutral. Franamax kindly approached me in response to my opinion. As an act of good faith, I am moving to neutral - I appreciate any candidate who is willing to talk to me about my opinion. However my opinion about the candidate, as such, still stands as it was. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)