Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias

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

Aitias[edit]

Final (32/21/8); Closed by WjBscribe as consensus not reached at 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias (talk · contribs) - I first ran into Aitias while patrolling the WP:AIV desk. It didn't take me long to be impressed with how quick and effective he is with recent change patrolling and reporting to AIV. I was so impressed that I started going through his edits and despite his relatively short time on the English Wikipedia, he has already made significant behind-the-scenes contributions with admin-related tasks. He is a proficient vandalism-whacker with 200 reports made to WP:AIV. I think he's too good at what he does to leave him without the mop any longer...lets give it to him. Trusilver 17:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Trusilver – I accept the nomination. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:
  • Altough I have rollback rights the rollback is limited to 5 rollbacks per minute. So I often get the message “Action throttled: As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes.” when I try to rollback vandalism. The admin-rollback is not limted, so I could use it here. In this way I could work more effective (I could revert even much more vandalism).
  • Another important point is, that I could block vandals myself without reporting them at AIV (I did more than 250 AIV-reports). This would especially be really helpful, when I could stop e. g. such spammers (in this case the spammer could do 57 spam-edits. After 16 minutes (!) he got blocked.).
  • When patrolling the newpages I could delete pages, which fit in the Criteria for speedy deletion by myself without requesting speedy deletion first (I did more than 300 speedy deletion requests).
  • I would try to have a look at the Candidates for speedy deletion and the Requests for page protection.
  • Besides I could —while patrolling the recent changes— protect pages myself, if necessary; without requesting the protection first.
  • At last, I think, I would have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, too.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Mainly I watch the Special:Recentchanges and revert vandalism there. I also translate articles from the German Wikipedia (e.g. Sardonism or Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?, which are not bad in my opinion).
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: Hmm, not really. Actually it is the opposite: I think it is a really nice working atmosphere. Other editors caused never stress or something like that. I think speaking with the user, I have a problem with, and saying frankly, whats the problem is the best method to solve conflicts. If I would have a conflict with another editor, I would try to solve it in this way.

Questions from Pumpmeup

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

A. Well, as far as I know, a block is something administrators use to prevent IPs from editing Wikipedia in order to prevent damage for the project (e. g. vandalism from IPs). A ban is more than a block - it is a revocation of the editing privileges (from registred users) on Wikipedia or on parts of Wikipedia. I think a block is done by an administrator, a ban is done by the community (or the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee).

5. (100% optional) In your own words, what motivates you to perform the work you do on Wikipedia?

A. Hm, at first I think Wikipedia is a great project. I do the work I do because I think it's important to protect article from vandalism. If somebody writes an great articles and a vandal ruins this article - When nobody would revert that, what would happen? I think the encyclopedia could not exist. So I hope that I can do a little contribution to this great project.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

A. If I would be an admin it would be important for me to have the trust of the community. So I think this category is an good idea and (if I would become an administrator) I would think about adding myself to it - but in any case I would “reconfirm” when I think that I don't have the trust of a sufficient number of other editors (anymore).

Questions from Zenwhat

7. What does ignore all rules mean to you? (Explain in detail)

A. I think WP:IAR wants to say, that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I think there are some basic rules like Wikipedia:No personal attacks or no edit wars on which attention should be paid. Beside these basic rules you should ever do what's the best for the project - as I interpret this “policy”.


Questions from Thehelpfulone

8. You said *At last, I think, I would have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, too. Therefore, what would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any? --The Helpful One 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user should have some experience in recent changes patrolling (with undo or twinkle or something like that). And it would be important for me that the user wasn't involved in edit wars. In all the user should be trustworthy and have an sufficient edit count (I think at least ~500 edits, with at least 200 edits in mainspace) otherwise the danger of misuse of the tool would be too big.

Another question from Zenwhat

You answered my last one fairly well. Either you are being effectively coached (in which case you are evil) or you're worth being given sysop power. Per WP:AGF, I will assume the latter. Now you just have to prove you can follow basic logic:

9. There are six groups of alien races: Bleeps, bloops, rameks, shibongs, tarmaks, and zedens. These alien races somewhat overlap.

  • Some bleeps are bloops, rameks, shibongs, tarmaks, and zedens. However, some bleeps are not.
  • All bloops, rameks, shibongs, tarmaks, and zedens are bleeps.
  • All rameks are shibongs and some are bloops.
  • Some shibongs are rameks, while some shibongs are not.
  • Some shibongs are bloops, whilw some shibongs are not.
  • All tarmaks and zedens are bloops.
  • Some tarmaks are either shibongs, rameks, or zedens, while some tarmaks are not either shibongs, rameks, or zedens.

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS IS TRUE?
(a) Some zedens are shibongs.
(b) Some zedens are rameks.
(c) Some rameks are not bloops.
(d) Some tarmaks are not bleeps.

If anyone gives you help, your answer will not count. A tip: It may help to draw a venn diagram. I used one in constructing this question. Also, if someone tries to intentionally prevent you from answering the question by correctly answering the question first just to mess with you, you may still be able to answer the question correctly if you draw a venn diagram of the above assertions. If it turns out that I buggered up the above question and you prove it, I'll vote for you. (And no, it's not a trick question. I didn't intentionally mess up the question.) ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Hmm, sorry, I'm not sure. Statement (c) could be true. But, I'm really not sure.
Comment: I was wondering how exactly this question has to do with an RFA? I mean for all we know it could be some homework that you have to hand in or something? You need to be able to solve puzzles and discussions and disputes as an administrator but logic questions like this as well? --The Helpful One 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: erm... I think it's another Zen contribution from Zenwhat, to be taken rather like the Neutral contributions that Gurch makes in other RfAs. That is to say, it's something to make us all think, and smile, but not necessarily to take too seriously. But I could be wrong, and if I am I'm sure I'm about to be told so... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... my neutral votes don't require the candidate to spend an hour drawing venn diagrams to avoid being opposed... – Gurch 23:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to follow basic logic is a very critical skill for administrators, infinitely far more important than the ability to make 25 articles. He guessed C and he was correct. Even though it was a guess, odds are 3 to 1 that he actually thought about it and didn't just get lucky. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't consider this sort of thing in the already stressful atmosphere of an RfA to be particularly helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from @pple

10. Your very first edits showed an unusual profound understanding of Wikipedia, for example redirect code, signature and especially monobook.js with WP:TW. Can you give me an explanation for this? Thanks. @pple complain 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Hm, I knew Wikipedia (before creating an account) for ages. I used it very often for getting information. Installing Twinkle wasn't really difficult: I saw edit summaries saying "using WP:TW" everywhere and so I decided to try it.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Nom Support - Trusilver 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the_undertow talk 01:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - needs the mop.   jj137 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support 203 edits to AIV? Definitely needs the mop. (Better get this in before it's 204). Kakofonous (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I've supported good candidates who wouldn't really use the mop, this is a good candidate who will use the mop. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Excellent user: polite, hardworking, good to interact with, and listens to advice. I was more than happy to grant Aitias rollback a few weeks ago to aid with his vandal-fighting, as I believed he was trustworthy with it. I think he's experienced enough to become an administrator. Acalamari 03:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per 10,000 edits should give enough experience in the absence of any evidence that nom does not understand the tools. Please review Dispute resolution, as Admin actions sometimes require that knowledge. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I don't think that the lack of time has any bearing whatsoever on his stellar contributions, he has been here 2 months and has accumulated an impressive amount of experience and expertise, and it would be a net loss for Wikipedia to deny him adminship another 3 months. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I guess I could support this one. Seems like he needs the tools. Timmeh! 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. An unusual profile, but every reason to believe the tools will be used appropriately. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - from his answer to Q1, I gather he wants the extra buttons to block vandals who continue after the final warning, and delete new pages that are complete nonsense. His contributions indicate that he understands these processes, and more admins in these areas would be of benefit to the project. Addhoc (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nom. EJF (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support Although I would prefer that an admin candidate had more experience in a variety of duties I am inclined to believe that Aitias would not misuse the tools and would enable him to perform better on the project. MSGJ (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up: Please could you remove the message Unsigned messages will be reverted. from your talk page. It's okay to request people sign, but to threaten to revert unsigned comments looks a little unfriendly I think and would be biting newbies who don't know about signing. MSGJ (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi MSGJ. I would never revert an good faith edit just because it's unsigned - I just revert e. g. such comments when they're unsigned. Isn't that okay? :) Kind regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - 10,000+ edits in two months demonstrates that user is quite insane and clearly unsuited to continue being allowed to edit. Strongly support this user being demoted to admin status. Preferably if user also agrees to seek immediate medical attention for Wikipediholism. Gromlakh (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, experience is irrelevant if the editor is well-intentioned and willing to learn, which Aitias is. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support – I have absolute confidence that this user will stay in the areas in which he is experienced. —Animum (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just would like to say that I definitively would just stay in the areas, I'm experienced in. I never would use the tools in areas, I'm not experienced in. —αἰτίας •discussion• 03:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per Cometstyles, who never ceases to outdo himself. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    lolwut? ...--Cometstyles 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support WP:AGF / WP:DEAL - No reason to think user will abuse the tools. Triona (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Experience is not necessary. The ability to stay on Wikipedia for years, creating massive contributions to the mainspace, has absolutely nothing to do with your capability as a SysOp. He answered both of my questions fairly appropriately and as such, he should be given sysop. If adminship is trly "no big deal" and just a "mop and bucket," the idea that one has to edit for 3 years straight and create at least 25 articles is absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I would normally oppose per lack of experience, but Aitias has made 203 AIV edits! All that giving Aitias adminship will do is benefit Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks good. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Have no problems with him receiving the mop. Earthbendingmaster 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Not too many users are trusted at this point, but this one manages to get mine. нмŵוτнτ 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - experienced vandal fighter (beats me to the revert a lot!); I wouldn't mind him getting the "mop and bucket." However, I would like to see this user do more than just revert vandalism, such as cleaning up spam, etc. --Ixfd64 (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. This user having the tools will benefit the encyclopaedia, and his experience is completely sufficient for what he intends to do with them. (Of course, if he ever plans on stepping outside the vandal-fighting role, he should tread lightly until he knows what he's doing, but very few admin candidates are, at the time of their adminship, qualified to do everything that admins ever do.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I realize that this is just a gesture at this point, but I do hope the candidate will remain involved and re-apply after a bit more time with the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - per Newyorkbrad. I too realise this won't be much of a compensation for what seems a destined no-consensus RFA. However, I've often comes across your efforts at AIV and UAA, where I don't even need to do the usual routine because I know that you will have been thorough in your reports and will have made sure the vandal is active now, has a final warning and is failing to stop. Not to mention the 2 months effort you've put in. Good job. Rudget. 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Definately can be trusted with the tools. -- Ryan Taylor 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I've seen you somewhere, I thing it was featured picture candidates. You were very insightful. Also, many edits to AIV also help. SpencerT♦C 02:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak Support time is not really a true indication of how experienced a user is, and thus I give my support. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 08:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Naturally. Per Sarcasticidealist. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 14:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. sorry but barely 2 months is not experienced enough..I'd prefer waiting it out for another month or so before requesting adminship again...10,000+ edits is impressive but high edit count matched with equal experience is what I love to see in an admin...sorry again..--Cometstyles 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. Two months is not enough to appreciate the several perspectives of situations that may require admin action. Besides, the mainspace editing experience seems heavy on translation and patrolling, and not enough on gathering of fresh material. It all looks a little too "mechanical." -- Iterator12n Talk 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, opposition in spite of the nom's good justification in A1. -- Iterator12n Talk 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Aitias joined Wikipedia on December 4, 2007. I have a great respect for his contributions. However, he is not experienced enough. I will support his next RfA. Good luck! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of experience do you think he lacks? Acalamari 17:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I'm sorry, but while your edit count is impressive and you editing is helpful, I hesitate in supporting someone with just two months here at the project. Jmlk17 07:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - more experience needed.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 11:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In what parts of the project do you believe that Aitias needs more experience? Acalamari 17:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Q4 and low experience. Also would like to see more effort made in the mainspace. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretful Oppose I'm really sorry about this as I hate to see obviously well-intentioned and extremely valued editors declined adminship. But whilst your outstanding effort has proven you have the right intentions, it doesn't demonstrate sufficient experience. Judging by your answers to questions and looking through your contributions I believe that you just won't yet know how to deal with many of the complex situations that administrators encounter on a day-to-day basis. There will be many occasions where other editors will look to you as a role model and you may just not have the knowledge to deal with the situation. Or, in the heat of battle you could inadvertently discourage one or more potential contributors. I would be happy to support or nominate you (if this RfA fails) in a short time (~ a month) provided you have diversified your edits and demonstrated you are familiar with a few more essential nooks and crannies Wikipedia's "behind-the-scenes scene" has to explore. It would be great to see if you could get a little more "dug in" to the community as Martijn Hoekstra articulated below. All the best, Pumpmeup 14:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per above. Not enough time. --Antonio Lopez (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose Good vandal fighter (that's why I'm making the oppose weak) but not enough experience. NHRHS2010 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose too soon, not enough general experience. Polly (Parrot) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose too soon. miranda 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Temporary oppose, until I get an answer for my question. @pple complain 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Things don't seem quite right here. Not enough experience, sorry. Majorly (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose per Majorly, Miranda and others. For sure, 10k edits indicates commitment, but frankly 5k edits and four months history (which I believe indicates the opportunity to have read debates, policies etc. etc.) would be preferable. I'm sure I'll be in support of a round two, but for now this just seems too rushed. Pedro :  Chat  16:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose
    first, on the basis of the answer to question 7 on IAR. Do you really think that asides from the basic rules , we should simply do "whatever will be best for the encyclopedia"? given we all have slightly different ideas of what will be, isn't such a way of doing things a prescription for chaos? How can we trust you to enforce the may existing policies when you don't seem to really believe we have any need for them?
    second, on the basis of the answer to question 1. Important as reverting vandalism is , it has to be done with care to see that one is not deleting useful material, and this especially applies to rollback. If you're frequently going to spend less than 12 second reverting something, you are probably going to be going too fast. The limit is placed not so an admin can go faster, but because an admin is expected to know not to usually go faster.
    third, also on question one, you seem to want to do speedy deletion immediately without placing tags. Sure, sometimes it is clearly appropriate, but on much of the stuff that comes up for speedy it is good to have someone to confirm. Short of attack pages and obvious vandalism, I almost always let someone else do the deletion if I tag. That this is a major reason for your wanting the mop leads me to think that you're likely to overuse it. DGG (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To your first point: I just said what I think the policy wants to say. I didn't say that we should ignore all other policies.
    To your second point: I think what you say is simply not true. 12 seconds are not necessary to revert vandalism carefully. I revert vandalism carefully, but I can do it much faster, example: 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. All that reverts were done within a minute. Kind regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Question #7, along with this RfA being pre-mature. Better luck next time, Tiptoety talk 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - per cometstyles. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Totally unexperienced. He's been here for 2 months, not for 2 years. 2 months being on wiki is nothing. Let's get serious, he's a newcomer. Kubura (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is Aitias "totally inexperienced"? Many opposers here have said that he "needs more experience", but hardly any have said what kind of experience he should gain to make himself a better editor. Also, 2 years is too long to wait to become an admin: I was one after about eight months, and I've been doing fine. Acalamari 17:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. One of the main admin tasks lately is dealing with images, fair use violations, etc. and with just two edits in the Image namespace unfortunately Aitias doesn't get a support from me. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Regretfully I might add. I see stupendous potential and some real rigorous drive - unfortunately, a few comments on your talk page lead me to believe you might be acting somewhat hastily - and I know this from experience and my own failed RfA. A few more months of the same activity, maybe a little less robotic, try some dispute resolution, mediation, requests for comment, administrator noticeboard etc..etc.. and you'll have my support. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I regreat opposing, but I must. I think you need more time under your belt. I know you have buku amount of edits, but the ammount of time isn't there yet. Keep going and in no time, I'll be putting a support on your next RfA. Sorry. Undeath (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Pending answers to my questions. I would support on the sheer effort you put into the project, but I doubt you've had the chance to get involved with some of Wikipedia's more complex situations. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, your contributions will always be valued and needed. -Pumpmeup 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Changed to oppose Pumpmeup 14:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For not being around long enough. I fear there may be misapplication of the tools, even if I don't expect it to happen. Getting a little more dug into the community may be a good thing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You have much potential, but you have no experience. I do not really feel comfortable supporting someone who has very little experience on wikipedia. I do not feel that lack of experience is a good enough reason to oppose someone though. Sorry:-( Try again in the future please.--SJP (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regretfully I have be neutral for this one. I don't have a problem with the answer to my question, it is just the fact that I don't think 2 months is enough experience. I think your 10,000+ edits are good, you seem like a bot!!! (joke). Sadly, its a neutral but I hope to support you in your next RFA! --The Helpful One 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. · AndonicO Hail! 13:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Gurch. ;) On a more serious note, I'd be happy to support you a few months down the road, but not now, unfortunately. · AndonicO Hail! 13:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... I haven't voted here – Gurch 13:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but Gurch, you're everywhere. :) Acalamari 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I joked with this user just after he got a Wikipedia account (sometime in December, I think) telling him that I looked forward to his future adminship. While I do believe that this user has done an incredible job so far, I like my admins to be active on Wikipedia for at least six or so months before adminship. --Sharkface217 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I feel that two months is not enough experience, but come back at a later date and I might support. :) Midorihana~iidesune? 07:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral —DerHexer (Talk) 22:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Good start, worthy of support. But not yet. Wait and get some more experience in the quarries. docboat (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aitias&oldid=1089813055"