Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony Appleyard

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.


Anthony Appleyard[edit]

Final (41/14/4); Ended 13:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) – A user for more than two years, Anthony should probably have been considered for adminship earlier. He has worked on a wide range of subject areas including medicine and modern weapons, and knows his way around process well enough to be effective there. (Radiant) 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept nomination. Anthony Appleyard 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Any that I feel that I can do. I acknowledge that I am not the world's expert in all subjects. I realise that I would be an "apprentice administrator" until I learn more about it.
I do not have any fan-type excess interest or adulation of pop music or a football team or etc. I feel that I would be able to stay neutral with various issues that fan followings get heated about, e.g. I have noticed page Manchester being affected by partisan edits by Manchester City versus Manchester United football fans.
As I am now retired I have more time available.
I am familiar with the process of pages being speedy-deleted or AfD'ed, and the copyright process, and the image licencing system. Via discussions about vandalism I am familiar with the process of users being blocked.
I have read about the process of merging edit histories when a page has been moved by cut-and-pasting.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I leave it to the readers to say that this or that item of my contributions is good or bad or indifferent.
I have contributed an amount to scuba-related articles including about rebreathers because I scuba dived for many years.
I expanded Frogman (and related pages that I split off from Frogman, which got too long) from one small stubby article which had only irrelevantia about a Wizard of Oz series character: [1]
I compiled a list of frogman actions that used Human torpedoes: that list is now included in various articles about nations' frogman organizations.
By Google web search I recently found http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/3138/td3138cond.pdf , which let me put more information in Anti-frogman techniques.
A while ago someone thanked me for tidying up pages about corsets, and more recently about placebos.
I have done various merges, for example, Berlin#History of Berlin should be a short summary with pointer of History of Berlin, but both had expanded until they became merely another content forking.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Due to apparent content forking, I tried to reorganize History of radio and related pages, and other people had other ideas. I backed off to avoid a long edit-and-revert war.
I have had a few instances of this annoyance:- I start an article. I save it early so I do not lose my edits so far in any system crash. Someone sees the short incomplete article and speedies it before I can get to my computer again.
Occasionally a matter arises about including a word which someone feels "should go without saying"; but at my age it my experience that nothing can be 100% guaranteed to follow automatically in everybody's lines of thinking.
My only recent running counter-argument with authority was me trying to get Duck and Pussy semiprotected permanently: a look at their edit histories should show why.
I admit guilt in the matter of Ginger Snell etc in the Eye, Cambridgeshire article, as described below by User:CLW; but that was 13 months ago (early November 2005) and I have learned Wikipedia procedure better since. Sorry.
If I get into a difference of opinion over something, I try to resolve it quietly, or let it go to arbitration. Or to say in the article e.g. that "there is an opinion that xxxxxx, and there is an opinion that yyyyyy."

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
  • WP:IAR: Where there is a set of rules, from time to time arises a situation not anticipated by those who made the rules, and where the letter of the law is not the best course of action. (An example (but not in Wikipedia) is that the Sikh religion's rules about turbans did not anticipate motorcycles and jet fighters and the resulting advisability of helmets for their drivers.).
  • WP:SNOW: Do not waste Wikipedia's admins' time and filestore space with an AfD or arbitration request or whatever which it is easily seen will be answered "no".
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: There are various grounds for blocking listed at Wikipedia:Blocking policy; but the rules say that these should not be used as a punitive measure. However, whether the block is considered as punitive or not, the effect on the blocked user is the same. If this means suspending a user's right to edit for x weeks as a punishment :: this seems to be discouraged; but a better official definition of "punitive blocking" would be useful.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: It promotes a product and does not make fair NPOV comparison with other similar rival products. It looks as if its author has financial connection with those who make the product.
7. What is your age? (Candid and thoughtful responses are appreciated, however if you feel uncomfortable giving a specific answer, providing an age range is also appreciated.)
A: 64
General comments
  • See Anthony Appleyard's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • My PC is a few years old and runs Windows 98 and thus cannot display some foreign writing systems.

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominate and support. (Radiant) 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Who hasn't done a little WP:OWNing in their day? I trust this candidate. - crz crztalk 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Terence Ong 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Trustable. Insanephantom 12:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support not likely to abuse the tools, but edit summary usage is kind of low. Needs more participation in Wikipedia talk. ← ANAS Talk? 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Anas. Seems like he'd be a productive and reasonable administrator. Coemgenus 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per anas. --teh tennisman 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I trust both the nominator and the nominee. Some enhancement in edit summary usage is needed though. Good luck. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just restored this entry, which I accidentally deleted at this edit. Anthony Appleyard 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I believe candidate has seen the light. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Besides low edit summary usage and low Wikipedia talk, there isn't really much else to criticize about. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per crz. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Excellent candidate. Agent 86 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - per nom, experience, and image experience[2] despite answering the age question --T-rex 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - personally I'm not concerned about early days mistakes. Addhoc 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. An excellent candidate. =) Nishkid64 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral. Nishkid64 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Radiant's nomination tells me he respects the candidate's interpretations of policy, process and editing; Radiant is an admin whose principles I agree with in a number of areas. I like the mention of copyright and image/license matters, since that is an area which needs much more attention than does CSD or AfD so I'd like to see another sysop in those waters. Whether the candidate has an FA/GA or not is irrelevant to how he will use the tools, and based on the assumption that he will make an effort to use edit summaries every edit, I support Anthony in this RfA. BigNate37(T) 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn, see below. BigNate37(T) 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - expierenced and trustworthy. // I c e d K o l a 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support looks to be pretty experienced, perfectly capabale for admin. status.Ganfon 06:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-23 09:51Z
  21. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Knows the rules. Answered questions well. Looks good. Nephron  T|C 16:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support more then qualified.-- danntm T C 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom. I have no problems with anything regarding his adminship. --Wizardman 18:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support he deserves the mop and bucket. Shyam (T/C) 19:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support WOW, that's a lot of edits! Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 06:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seems like great user, highly qualified.Ganfon 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you already !voted (see support #20 above). --210physicq (c) 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, fully qualified candidate, good responses to oppose comments, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 19:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Has his heart in the right place, and has made several good contributions to the encyclopedia. I believe Anthony will do well with the mop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. As per Crzrussian and Szvest. Asteriontalk 10:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Yes. Canadian-Bacon 17:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Sjakkalle. RHB 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support The recent incidents in the opposition section strike me as hiccups that Anthony handled here well. The "apprentice administrator" attitude from A1 is awesome.--Kchase T 08:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Proto::► 18:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support You have what it takes to be an admin but miss a few points.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak Support The many points raised by other Wikipedians in the Neutral and Oppose categories make me question your possible future status as an Admin. However, I do feel you are suited to the tasks of an Administrator and I reluctantly support your nomination for the mop. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. The Blue Lion 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Happy New Year Cocoaguycontribstalk 03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, no concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Articles are not buffers against disputes. You can't say that an article should stay because merging or deleting would cause disputes on another page. -Amarkov blahedits 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise that a decision must be made sometimes although it would cause an argument. The case referred to (about Jahbulon) is an unusual case because of the alleged position of the word in Freemasonry. Anthony Appleyard 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Regrettably so. I'm concerned by this candidate's views on punitive blocks. I've already been the victim of a punitive block by an administrator on a crusade. (Full disclosure: I did give the candidate an opportunity to review the policy and revise the answer.) —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry: I thought I was merely quoting the rules. I have changed my reply. Anthony Appleyard 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose unfortunately, per low edit summary usage, 54% as of now. I would be very happy to remove my vote if you promise to change your preferences so that you are always asked about putting in edit summaries and you agree to pay more attention into the matter. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my preferences as asked. Anthony Appleyard 17:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose vote withdrawn. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I've seen this candidate revert-warring engaging in occasional intransigent edits to include non-standard edits to disambiguation pages with unconvincing supporting arguments (example), which leads me to have reservations about his judgment regarding knowledge and application of policies and guidelines. --Muchness 21:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ths pointed-to example was an edit of Tank (disambiguation). Some disambig pages have a "main meaning" at the top and some don't. There were two opinions here. To some people "tank" means first a big vehicle; not to some others. Anthony Appleyard 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, if an article has a primary topic, as in the case of tank, it is recommended to link it at the top of the associated disambiguation page. The question of whether the military meaning should be the primary topic is a separate issue, and revert-warring over a dab page's formatting to raise the issue instead of using established processes such as talk page discussion or WP:RM is in my opinion more inappropriate behavior for an admin. --Muchness 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have made my change twice or so at longish intervals. Is that a war? Anthony Appleyard 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert-warring was an overstatement, I apologize. I feel that it's important for admins who are active in specialized areas such as disambiguation to work with the relevant guidelines, and I feel that your history in this area (as recently as today, when you added a dictionary definition with no target article [3]), suggests a possible problem area. --Muchness 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen hundreds of disambig page lines without links. In such a case it is a choice between evils: either some of the disambig page's lines must be short dictdefs, or there must be content forking between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Anthony Appleyard 10:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. HalfOfElement29 04:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per question four. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Too many pointers that this might not work out properly, starting with lack of an idea what to do as admin, poor responses to Malber's questions, the seemingly abandoned articles in userspace, low edit summary count, and a propensity to vote subjectively ("I don't like porn") on some of the recent AfD's I surveyed. ~ trialsanderrors 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Unfortunately, while I was looking over AfD's, I came across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rhodes. Your comment was "Delete. Yet another porn actor. Down the chute with it." You voted upon the fate of an article without truly verifying the subject's notability (nominators are sometimes wrong), and you just voted to delete the article based on your personal opinion of porn. I know you meant well, but on Wikipedia, even porn actors get an article if they pass WP:PORNBIO guidelines. I would like it if you would exercise better judgment in the future! Thanks. Nishkid64 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Sorry, but voting to delete an article on a pornstar should be based on whether the subject is notable, not just because it's a porn star. Worried about what it would be like if someone who takes this view towards deleting articles became and admin. Jenny Wong 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Too many concerns for comfort raised in both the Oppose and Neutral columns. Singopo 01:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Per the concerns above and especially the "I don't like porn" vote. I am not satisfied this candidate would display the necessary neutrality to use the mop well. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I've changed my neutral vote to oppose - in addition to my concerns expressed below, I feel I must oppose granting adminship to an editor who votes to delete an article on the grounds of the subject being a porn actress without considering notability or other grounds for inclusion. I don't like Nazism, but I still think it warrants an article. CLW 01:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My remark on the porn actor seems to have been misunderstood by several people. I was not referring specifically to her being in porn, but that there are so many porn actors that they cannot all be notable. Perhaps I could have worded it better. Sorry. I have withdrawn my objection in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rhodes. Sorry. I have looked her up in Google and yes, she (or other people with the same name) is notable. Anthony Appleyard 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that comment (and the one in the Kleevage AfD, which I linked to above) is that the impression persists that the motivation to call for deletion stemmed from a personal dislike for the topic, and not from an objective evaluation of the claims and sources against the general and special notability guidelines. The fact that not all porn actors are notable does not allow for the corollary that all are non-notable, or that research into their notability becomes unnecessary. ~ trialsanderrors 09:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Kleevage to "keep": a Google search showed "about 159,000" finds. "Any horse may stumble once." OK. Sorry. Can we "draw a line under" this? Anthony Appleyard 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded there. ~ trialsanderrors 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That pointer leads to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I have now read it and duly studied it. Anthony Appleyard 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WeakStrong oppose for now. This is not the best way to withdraw your vote/!vote. Not a big deal for a non-admin, but removing your comments instead of striking them out (unless you've changed your mind in a couple of minutes after posting) is uncool. Another user commented on your opinion, yet you left his comment contextless. MaxSem 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put that deleted reply back and then struck it, as advised. Anthony Appleyard 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, then I noticed that you changed another your edit that was criticized above. Not the behaviour I expect from admin. Switched to strong oppose. MaxSem 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There also, I have now put my old reply back and then struck it. Sorry. Thanks for telling me. I was unaware of what was correct procedure. I know now. Sorry. I will not make this mistake again. People live and learn. Anthony Appleyard 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Nishkid64. His opinion on "yet another porn actor" makes me fear that he would be an unwieldly deletionist. Juppiter 22:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my answer to User:BigNate37's "neutral" entry below. Anthony Appleyard 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, withdrawn Juppiter 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Very sorry Anthony, I found your actions around the Alicia Rhodes AfD quite inappropriate. You first leave a rather lousy comment, which is picked up and commented on here. What I didn't like is the fact you first deleted it completely, instead of striking it, then changed your vote altogether. I believe you did that due to comments at this request, just to please the opposers. An admin candidate shouldn't really be making mistakes like that, especially during an RfA. --Majorly (Talk) 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "do it to please the opposers". I did a bad choice, and was told that I was wrong, and corrected it. I did not know that I should have struck it instead of deleting it; I know now. We live and learn. Anthony Appleyard 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But you don't need the admin tools to learn the baby steps of AfD discussions. It's very apparent from your behavior during the discussions and the debate here that this a completely new world for you. ~ trialsanderrors 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From the rather newbie-ish mistake of deleting rathern than striking out, Anthony seems less experienced than some RFA candidates who have contributed to a thousand AFDs, but I believe this was a simple good-faith mistake that he will immediately learn from. As someone who has closed a lot of AFDs like the porn AFDs mentioned, I will provide some context in defense: it is easy to fall into the "not another one of these non-notables" mode with such serial nominations from well-respected administrators, on both sides of the aisle: non-notable porn stars, non-notable churches, not to mention non-notable schools, non-notable fan fiction, non-notable websites ...; hopefully this mistake will also be a learning experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 02:52Z
    The issue is more that he switched from "I don't like it" to "Gets 50,000 Google hits". I don't care whether he knows the proper wikicode, but I care what kinds of arguments he buys into when he closes AfD's as he said he'd do per his answer to Q1. That's what makes this RFA premature. ~ trialsanderrors 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 03:31Z
  13. Weak Oppose there are concerns already raised about poor use of edit summary, inappropriate responses in AfDs, but my concern rests with interaction with users in talk space out of total of 20000+ less than 1500 on talk pages. It makes me worry that if Admin might struggle with the negotiation in times of conflict - something that comes with the job! Would support in future if worked with other users to a greater extent and tidied up other issues raised. Cheers Lethaniol 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose There is certainly much to (re)commend the candidate, and he is surely possessed of many qualities the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious. There remain, though, several unassuaged concerns apropos of his judgment as regards adjudging the strength of AfD arguments and ascertaining for what prospective disposition a consensus lies, such that, whilst I am altogether sure that he should neither abuse nor misuse generally (e.g., by acting whereof he is insufficiently familiar) the tools, I can't conclude with any significant degree of certainty that he wouldn't err with unnecessary frequency and thus cannot, on the basis of the instant record, be reasonably sure that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive. Joe 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral (changed to oppose) - I worry that Anthony gets rather territorial over certain articles, resisting changes made to these. For example, see Talk:Frogman - my attempts to reword "Wrong usage" to "Incorrect usage" (which, in my opinion, sounds more natural in modern-day usage) and other rewordings were reverted on the basis that Anthony's preferred choice of words dates back to Viking times, which I find a rather odd argument to use at Wikipedia. With the same article it took several attempts to remove an unsourced quotation - Anthony resisted this removal, going to rather convoluted lengths to try to give his quotation credibility - adding irrelevant references to a certain Ginger Snell here and here to the Eye, Cambridgeshire article. Clearly Anthony is something of an expert in a number of fields and has made countless valuable contributes, enriching Wikipedia, but I'd have concerns about granting adminship to a user who seems unwilling to let others edit articles which are close to his heart. However, I'm also aware that the examples I'm citing relate to reversions made to my own edits (and date back a year), so perhaps I'm not in a position to be objective and could be accused of harbouring a grudge (although I'd like to think I don't hold grudges), hence my "Neutral" vote rather than opposing adminship at this stage. CLW 11:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This user does have what it takes to be an admin. You are missing a few steps such as Good Article/Feature article status. Your last 500 contributions I looked at, you don't seem to be participating in Article for deletion. You have most of the things that require you for adminship but miss a few points--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Change my answer to support.[reply]

  1. Neutral Per the Own stuff. I'm between neutral and support, but i'll stick here for now. Just H 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per the issues raised, also only 14 wiki-talk edits. A strong candidate but I feel I can't support with such a low number. I'm leaning toward support. James086Talk | Contribs 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In light of the AfD voting and what seem to be personal opinions taking precedence over policy, I'm changing my support to neutral. BigNate37(T) 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realise that my stray jocular remark in an AfD may have been treated as more serious than intended. Sorry. I will avoid doing that again. Anthony Appleyard 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your reply. I respect you as an editor, though I feel it best to withhold support in your RfA at this time. I'd like to see you (re-)establish a good record, and if this RfA does not pass I'd be happy to support you in the future assuming in that time you take heed the advice given here and keep the mistakes to a minimum. BigNate37(T) 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral while reverting vandalism resolves an immediated problems, with your last 10 "rv vandalism" there's no follow up warning on the users talk page. Warnings normally reduce further attacks and enable admins to take action earlier with repeat offneders. Gnangarra 02:32, 27 December 2006 (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/Anthony_Appleyard&oldid=1089067047"