Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrahamColm

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

GrahamColm

Nomination

FINAL (129/7/2); closed 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) by EVula

GrahamColm (talk · contribs) – Hello all, it is my pleasure to nominate GrahamColm for adminship. He is a mature, sensible and helpful editor I have encountered alot around FAC, and I imagine he has a stack of article pages on his watchlist. With over 6000 edits since April 2007 (and >3900 in mainspace), 3 featured articles and alot of help on many others, I feel him being granted extra powers would be a big net positive to the project. He is always calm, helpful and good at offering constructive criticism, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination. I've had GrahamColm's talk page watchlisted for over a year, after encountering his work on medicine articles. I have never observed anything other than steady, conscientous, solid, knowledgeable and civil editing from him. His prolific reviews at FAC are as valuable as the Featured articles he has written; he is willing to dig in and help on articles in any topic area. I also observed recently how he effectively defuses drama and tension. He needs the tools to help out with moves and protects on medicine articles, and I'm confident he will thoroughly study other areas before applying the tools. (Also, we can always use admin help at FAC, since I'm not an admin.) The addition of GrahamColm to the admin corp will continue the fine tradition of bio/med admins like User:Encephalon, User:Tim Vickers, User:Fvasconcellos, User:MastCell, and others; considering the importance of avoiding inaccuracies in medicine articles, we can never have too many Medicine project admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I gratefully accept the nomination Graham Colm ^Talk 12:24, 22 December 2008 (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: To be honest, not that much until I fully understand the duties and responsibilities of administrators. I have asked for administrative help on occasions and have a basic idea of their roles and appreciate how valuable they are. But at first, I need to learn how to use the tools correctly and wisely and memorise as much as I can of the Wikipedia policies and essays that relate to them. Having said that, I have access to rollback and I'm confident using it—which I have done many times. I watch the "recent changes" page (for relaxation, would you believe, when I am taking a break from writing articles and FAC reviews) and I have had to revert all types of blatant and subtle vandalism. I usually watch IPs and new users and I always leave a warning on the Talk page. Often I see a long list of previous warnings from other editors and it is frustrating to only be able to report them.

This is an example from tonight:[1]. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

But in this one [2] I assumed good faith, but I still rolled-back. I'm sure it is not a cure for Influenza (and there was no citation), but I do not consider this vandalism. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

B: With regard to blocking, this is something I would never do without serious thought. Although it is not a punishment, it is often seen as such and can drive people away from the project. There is a problem with IPs because there is nobody to talk to, as most IPs are shared by many users. Where I would prefer to discuss a problem with an account holder rather than use the tool, this is not an option with IPs. Should I discover an IP that is continuously and continually vandalising pages I would block them. A lot of time and hard work has gone into this project and it would be my duty to protect it.

C: I am fortunate in that I work mostly on virus articles and these are rarely controversial, but there have been occasions when a page needs protection. I have seen how useful this tool can be and would be prepared to use it on request subject to a clear and valid reason being given.

D: I would not delete a page without serious thought and before cross-checking the page creators Wikipedia history despite a speedy delete template. Clearly some silly articles are created that tarnish the reputation of the project and these should be deleted a.s.a.p. However, I have learnt a valuable lesson; one of my (no ownership implied) subsequently featured articles was deleted on the day it was born while it was being written.

E: When not reviewing FACs I work mainly on virus articles. These are in a poor state on the whole. I need to be able to move over re-directs and delete stubs where merger with more polished article is possible.

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

A: This is easier to answer. I was very proud when Rotavirus appeared on the Main Page. This little known virus is a real nuisance and Wikipedia now has the best article about it on the Internet. (Please trust me I have looked). Virus is a core article and it was a great day for me when it was promoted. I had worked on the article for a year. I was asked to write Introduction to viruses and was reluctant at first to do so. But I think it has become a valuable addition to the project. Most of the images for these and other virus articles are my own work and I think these are important contributions.

B: Having said that, I think my best contributions have been at FAC. I have reviewed over 200 candidates this year. FA sets the standard that all contributions aspire to and, although I don't think I'm a brilliant reviewer, I think it is one of the most important aspects of the project.

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: No conflicts as such, discussions, yes usually about viruses being living or non-living? I don't often suffer from stress and it is never caused by other editors. I admit to suffering a little stress when I have a FA nomination running.

Additional questions from Mattisse

• I notice that you have relied on email communications regarding FAC matters and FAC participants in the past, going by statements you have made on talk pages. I assume that you use email communications extensively on other matters also. Some Admins have email disabled and refuse to conduct business that is not transparent. How important do you think transparency is for an Admin on Wikipedia? Do you intend to conduct admin business through emails?

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have received emails from other editors recently but I have only ever replied to User:Colin, and we have never discussed FACs. I think transparency is paramount. Emails can be useful, but I will not use email for administrative purposes. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do see frequent participants in FAC as relying on emailing a great deal, so I appreciate your answer. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never had a single e-mail exchange with GrahamColm, in either direction (I would hope if there was a lot of emailing among FAC participants, I would be aware). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot, early last year, I replied to an e-mail from a member of the medicine project. The email was about about Birmingham University (UK), (from where I graduated). That's all the Wikipedia emails I have responded to. Having said this, I see no problem in making friends with other Wikipedians. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases:

5. What virus do you believe currently poses the most danger to humanity? Why?

A: Good question, but one WP:NPOV prevents my answering. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us your personal opinion? Not a trick question, just curious :) TotientDragooned (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this with you later on my talk page. Graham Colm ^Talk 05:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Nsk92:

6. When, if ever, is it appropriate to give an indef block to an IP vandal?

A: Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. Graham Colm ^Talk 05:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but could you please answer the question directly? Nsk92 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy reads "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked" - almost never, as far as I am concerned, means, in this context, never. Often a block of a few hours is enough to see off vandals. Blocking is to protect Wikipedia, not to punish anyone. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Suppose a user valndalizes a Wikipedia article by repeatedly blanking it seven times, and, as an admin, you give the user a block (say for 24 hours). The user then immediately asks for an unblock and says that he/she is sorry and was just having fun. Would you grant the unblock? If not, would you deny the unblock request yourself?

A: No to both questions. Wikipedia is not the place to have that kind of "fun". I would thank them for their apology, explain how much time and effort goes into this project, tell them that it is much more fun to contribute to articles, point out that there might be many readers trying to read the article in question, but I would leave it to another, more experienced admin to address the unblock request. Graham Colm ^Talk 05:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, administrators shouldn't tend to unblock requests for users they've blocked. Just FYI. :) –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle:

8. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used in Wikipedia?

When I want to see Jimbo in a law court, in other words never ;-) Graham Colm ^Talk 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. Per WP:NFC, non-free images of living people should not be used in WP articles about these people themselves and fair use claims do not apply to such cases. However, a non-free image of a living person may be used, under an appropriate fair use claim, in an article about something else. E.g. movie posters often include photographs of characters that appear there, played by particular actors. It is OK to include a non-free image of a such a poster in a WP article about the film itself (but not about the actor), such as, for example, here: Four Weddings and a Funeral. Similarly, in an article about a literary character it may be OK to use an image from a movie of some actor/actress portraying that character, such as here: Harry Potter (character). WP aricles about various events routinely include, under fair use claims, non-free photos (typically taken from newspapers) that do have some living people in them. And so on. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this; it illustrates just how important it is to adhere to Wikipedia policies on images, and if an editor is not sure they should ask before uploading them. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you have questions about non-free images. If I can't answer it, I'll go off to find out who can. --Moni3 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Wizardman

9. Do you still plan to continue reviewing FACs fairly often after obtaining adminship?

Yes, and I hope to become a better reviewer because as I said above: "FA sets the standard that all contributions aspire to and, although I don't think I'm a brilliant reviewer, I think it is one of the most important aspects of the project." Graham Colm ^Talk 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment from GrahamColm

One of the articles I watch is Aspirin. Just before leaving home to go to work at my hospital this morning, I saw this edit:

"In recent studies there has been a strong link between the correlation of orally administered aspirin and the reduction and eradication of both HIV and AIDS. This suggests a cost effective and safe treatment for all AIDS patients. These studies vary in the exact amount of aspirin to be taken in one day but the amounts range from 7.5 grams to 12.5 grams. This is the equivalent of 23 to 38 aspirin at one time."

Never before have I seen such malicious vandalism. If I were an administrator, I could have instantly blocked the contributor for at least enough hours for me not to have to worry all day that such nastiness would be re-added. This amount of aspirin could kill. Imagine an inquest; when it is reported the victim read about this on Wikipedia! I rolled-back the edit and left for work. I hope that this puts my poor answer to questions on fair use of images in proportion to how I want to contribute to this project. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Here's the diff' [3]. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• Not all admins are the same. If they do not do admin chores daily, or have not participated all that much before in admin-related activities does not mean they will not be an asset. In Graham's specific case, he feels slightly hampered without admin privileges. I hope we can agree that Graham is not about to go on a rampage with admin tools. What he will use the tools for is to make his a little easier, which are basic housekeeping chores. Graham is an experience featured article writer and Wikipedia editor, so I trust him to do that well. We desperately need more admins. If one more admin that is promoted, that is a bit less administrative backlog creates. In conclusion, Graham is a very experienced editor who, I believe, will help the rest of the community by helping himself, with his extra buttons. Maxim_(talk) 21:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Graham's nomination is one of several I recall where an editor did not express interest in the full range of tools, and did not have significant experience in admin areas. All of these editors that I can bring to mind have turned out to be perfectly good admins. Since concern is sometimes expressed (as in the opposes below) that a nominee has little experience, it's worth looking at the records of the admins that have been given the admin bit because they were trusted to learn well. The ones I can bring to mind immediately are Geometry guy, DrKiernan, Moni3, and Jbmurray. I'm sure others can be added to this list. All have continued to be assets to the project as they were before; I feel their record demonstrates that trust, with or without extensive activity in admin-related areas, is a good predictor of a successful admin. Mike Christie (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Amen. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes. Well done. Graham all the way. --Moni3 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes. Graham does excellent work. Impressive nominators, as well, whom I've beaten in.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Definitely. Will make a good administrator. =) D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Beat-the-noms support. Absolutely: if Graham's fine combination of article writing and projectspace work is any indication, he will make an excellent admin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, per excellent quality contributions to this project. Thank you for volunteering to help out in this added capacity. Cirt (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Graham is a fine editor and will make a fine admin. Mike Christie (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Slow voting nominators are a plus. — neuro^(talk) 18:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support--Peter Andersen (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Graham does excellent article and reviewing work and is trusted by everyone who deals with him. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. We need some good ole medics amidst the manga and death metal majority. NVO (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Support without any reservations whatsoever. The excellent work he's doing on the virus articles would be made easier for him with those few extra buttons, and I see no reason at all to suppose that he'd suddenly go mad if allowed access to a block button. I have complete faith that he would continue to be the thoughtful and helpful contributor that he has already so amply demonstrated himself to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support per responses to standard questions especially answer 1A. My first instinct was to go neutral for the same reasons as User:Ottava Rima - adminship is not a reward, and specifically look for opposes vs. value of having the tools. The only reasons I found to oppose so far was weak participation in Wikipdia: outside of Featured Article-related pages. Normally that would give a neutral, and his answers to other questions demonstrates the value of giving this guy keys to the broom closet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I've known Graham over a year on WP. He's an outstanding example of an expert editor patiently collaborating with us amateurs to produce great articles. Graham's many FAC reviews show he is willing to undertake some often-thankless tasks that nevertheless require careful attention and much thought. Graham is a gentleman and wise—attributes that, if missing, no amount of training or reading can compensate for. Colin°^Talk 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Samir 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Why the hell not? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Great editor, great nominators. Simple as that.--Iamawesome800 20:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - as the French say. . . yeah sure, why not? Very helpful and a nice guy too. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Support He has the knowledge base, experience with articles that are the basis for all the tools. One does not have to embroil yourself with the shenanigans at the DRAMA boards to be a good admin. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
19. Support He has a potential use for it and has done nothing to suggest he might not understand what to do with it. – iridescent 20:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Weak Support I honestly believe GrahamColm would make a good admin, and thats why I'm supporting, but the oppoosition by Wisdom89 can't be overlooked. America69 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    Indenting, whoever placed this !vote, please sign it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    It was America69. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 21:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

21. Hello, I’m Angelina Jolie, and I’ve come to this remote corner of the developing world with my publicists, stylist, wardrobe consultant, personal trainer, chef, bodyguards and Brad Pitt to call attention to issues of geo-political consequence...and to myself, of course. Oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for someone who is clearly a star on this project. To paraphrase Brad’s ex-wife: !voting against this candidate would be “uncool.” Ecoleetage (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Support, adminship should be given to those unlikely to cause damage with it, and it should be no big deal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong support Shows supreme competence in absolutely everything that matters on Wikipedia. Has therefore demonstrated obvious capability to learn all the little trivialities of being an admin. We are taking our eye off the ball when we balk at such a completely qualified candidate. Absolute confidence. --JayHenry (t) 21:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Ridiculously strong contributions, and if we can't trust our even tempered best writers, who can we trust? AniMate 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
25. 3FA's + 6000+ edits of high quality + high standards of civility + outstanding answers to the standard questions + Sandy and Cas nomming = Strong support in my book. Go to it! Master&Expert (Talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Strong Support A very good user and I think he would be a excellent admin. Good Luck!--Pookeo9 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
27. YES. Only seen very useful contributions from this user at WikiProject Medicine and have seen nothing in the slightest that alarms me. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
28. As with Moni's RFA, I think his content work overrides the lack of admin work mentioned by Wisdom. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
29. I am curious to why he asked Sandy to nom for him, but I see no reason to oppose. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    He asked me because I had previously offered many, many times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

30. Support no real need for the tools, but no concerns with yielding them either; will be a net positive. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Support - I believe this editor will be conscientious regarding his involvement in FAC and not misuse his admin powers. I believe his statement that he has not and will not engage in Wikipedia affairs via email, nor use his admin position to obtain FAC favors. He has avoided gossipy postings about other editors on SandyGeorgia's talk page. This gives me enormous faith. Sorry, but must move to oppose.—Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

32. Support I've seen only positive things from Graham. I trust his judgment. BuddingJournalist 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Support without reservation. My experience with and observation of GrahamColm in action (e.g., Herpes zoster last year) is uniformly positive. Eubulides (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
34. Rocks Bells — Realist² 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. Almost opposed (based on lack of experience with administrative tasks), but after reading the answers to the questions I changed my mind, realizing you are an intelligent editor and do not plan to use the tools in ways you have no experience with. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Has my confidence. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
37. Strong support Work at FAC and writing show a strong ability to analyse and show attention to detail which is very important. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
38. Support, one of the best editors on RfA for a while. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
39. Strong support An excellent contributor who can be trusted not to go crazy with the tools. This idea that one needs to participate in admin-lite tasks to understand that the tools should not be abused seems strange to me. Being an administrator isn't rocket science and common sense and an even temperament are better indicators of suitability than any amount of vandal-reporting, AfD contributing etc. As for concerns about need for the tools, this seems a little backward to me. Generally, unless there is a valid reason why an editor should not have the tools, what matter is it that he/she will rarely use them. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
40. Support due to no memorable negative personal interactions, as candidate has never been blocked, as candidate has been co-nominated by one of my top ten or so favorite Wikipedians (Casliber), and as candidate's user page suggests a good degree of high quality and constructive contributions. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
41. Very strong support - This is my strongest support !vote so far. Here are my reasons. A.) I agree with Wehwalt; the nominators are very impressive. B.) Civil editor. C.) Superb content builder. D.) Over 6,000 edits. A few other things; IMHO, we could very likely have another one for WP:100 with Graham. Also, judging by the early supports, looks to me like we narrowly escaped a reapeat of this. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 01:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
43. strong support mature, with common sense, and a fellow Brummie. :) Sticky Parkin 01:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. Oh dear. There seems to be a cabal! No, but in all seriousness, this user exemplifies a great contributor and article writer. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - Even though the user doesn't have much experience with adminy things it's not like he's going to go on a rampage. Matt (Talk) 02:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Graham is definitely a mature, trustworthy user. By any standard, a true top-caliber user. bibliomaniac15 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
48. Support. The candidate is mature, helpful and trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
49. Support - net positive? Y Support? Y Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 02:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - from neutral. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
51. Support trustworthy user. Shyamal (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - no reason to suspect he'd misuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
53. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
54. Support: Impressed with not only the answers, but the confidence in which they were drafted. ^Law _shoot! 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - The ability to perform administrative tasks here can be learned. The ability to be a talented, trustworthy, civil editor cannot. From my experience as an FAC reviewer, Graham is all three of those, and I have no doubt that he would be a great admin. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Just keep away from the big red button for a while :) Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Very mop-worthy, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. Long-term editor with excellent content contributions. I have seen his work in the Virology WikiProject. He might not be the most active admin, but I'm sure he will use the tools for the benefit of the project. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
59. Support. A strong candidate that shows plenty of wisdom and maturity - exactly the qualities that make him worthy of our trust. My congratulations in advance. Dean B (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
60. Per Maxim. Garden. 08:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
61. +S Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
62. Support - User GrahamColm has made a number of impressive contributions to medical articles and is, more importantly, a thoroughly competent and trustworthy editor. He will make an excellent admin. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
63. Weak Support Although he has been a great editor here, lack of knowledge to admin tools worries me, but I trust he will learn. Leujohn ^(talk) 10:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
64. Strong support – Outstanding editor. Caulde 11:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
65. Support per WP:WTHN. The user seems to be very thoughtful and will probably not rush head-first into areas he has no understanding of. I do not care if he does not want to use the tools often, he is a net positive if he uses them only once. And when he does, I am sure he will not abuse it. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
66. Of course. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
67. Support -- I like your article work! Cheers, ayematthew ✡ 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Looks like a good user. — Aitias // discussion 12:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Yep. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Trustworthy nominators, sensible answers to questions dispell any concerns about possible misuse of tools even if the candidate has no experience in administrative areas. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
71. Support. Little experience of admin-related tasks does not mean he will suddenly start pressing buttons willy-nilly to see what they do. Even so, it's not rocket science, and he is intelligent enough to first look into the specifics of any tasks he wishes to perform. It should be no big deal to give the tools to those we trust won't misuse them, even if they may not be called upon to deploy them very often. Steve ^{T • C} 13:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
72. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. I typically require more experience in the usual admin forums, but reading the questions above, looking through the candidate's meta contributions, and the obvious article building experience makes me land decisively in the support camp. I trust this candidate with the tools - definitely a net positive. Tan | 39 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
74. Support Net positive.--LAAFan^sign _review 16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
75. Strong support. Trustworthy, great user. Wizardman 17:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Would be a good admin I think. rootology (C)(T) 17:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
77. Strong Support. Great editor, fanatastic contribs and very helpful. Andy (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - it's not rocket science... VX!^~~~ 18:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
79. Support Good track and see no misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
80. Support - Definitely. The user does excellent work on articles. It is clear from answers that the candidate is highly knowledgeable in how Wikipedia works, and the only reason he's lacking in the understanding of certain policy nuances, is because he didn't cheat the process by looking up past answers or secretly asking other admins. I think that especially because of the answer to Q1, this candidate is the definition of what they call 'net positive'. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
81. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
82. A mature, sensible, and well-informed editor as an admin? That just won't do. Not at all. (Oh, and for the humor-impaired -- Support!) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
83. Support. —_macy^{es: bot} 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
84. miranda 22:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
85. Support Lack of huge admin-activity doesn't worry me: candidate is a good editor and I think he will not be going bonkers with admin tools until he feels comfortable doing so. FlyingToaster 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    I hope to never go bonkers; but should this happen and I seem comfortable about it I would accept being open to recall. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

86. 3 FA and SandyGeorgia vouching? I look no further!--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
87. Support per Wisdom89. An excellent and conscientious editor who does not wish to embroil himself in wikidrama is an ideal candidate for adminship. After all, it's no big deal, is it? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    You supported per someone that opposed? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    Correct (a form of opposing the oppose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    Indeedy, couldn't have put it better myself Sandy. Happy Christmas! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

88. Support Seems good to me. LittleMountain5 ^{Merry Christmas!} 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
89. Support I have had experience with Graham. Definitely a supportable candidate.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
90. Support - terrific work in microbiology. He'll be able to contribute more with the admin-tools. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
91. Support - Personal reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
92. Support - Supporting per comments from Mike Christie in the discussion above. It's a nice feeling to see an admin candidate with an impressive mainspace portfolio. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
93. Strong support: Late to the party, it appears, but I still wanted to chip in. I have absolutely no concerns here. Look, not every admin needs to haunt AN/I. I want to know whether someone can learn to be a good admin. Can they admit their mistakes and learn from them? Do they get it? I can absolutely guarantee that a mature, sensible, dedicated content creator who's never set foot on AN/I or XfD can learn this job - I'm not as confident about many of the people who frequent "admin" areas and the noticeboards. Anyhow, strong support it is - good luck, Graham. MastCell ^Talk 04:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
94. Support - An admin wannabe should have some experience in admin-related areas, but if you can make high-quality edits to this article, this article, this article, this article, and this article, you can easily understand the duties of admins. AdjustShift (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
95. Co-nom Support, sentimentally, wanted to be Number 100, but ... gotta sleep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
96. Co-nom Support oh yeah, forgot about that...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
97. Support I trust his judgment. Any technical admin tool details can be learned ... and for anyone who can wade through WP:MOS, WP:ADMINGUIDE will be a breeze :) Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
98. Based on his work and experience, Graham would make an essential Administrator. Here's my reply to a comment of Oppose: Not all admins have to excel in all areas.--DocDeel516 ^discuss 20:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
99. Support, sensible, mature and hard-working. I trust Graham completely. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
100. Strong support Wikipedia desperately needs admins who are clueful about scientific and medical issues. Skinwalker (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

     I knew this RfA would hit WP:100! I'll go add it to the list now. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

101. Support- I see no reason to think this user would misuse the tools. Reyk _YO! 23:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
102. Support - Clearly trustworthy. Also, SandyGeorgia's co-nomination makes a good point about admin help at FAC. Making GrahamColm an adimin would be a positive move. -- Suntag ☼ 00:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
103. Support — Would make a fine administrator. Could also help at WP:FAC also. RyanCross @ 08:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
104. Support. Disappointing answer to question 8. Otherwise an excellent candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
105. Support More than than merely trustworthy. This one's an obvious choice. Steven Walling (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
106. Support I've no concerns with the candidate, looks to be trustworthy and generally know what he's doing. Nick (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
107. Support abf /talk to me/ 16:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
108. Per SG's conom. Also per SBHB. Also per Wisdom89's oppose. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
109. Per oppose votes. What a fine user. —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
110. Support John254 22:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

     Support. The Master Plan shall be completed! 82.131.110.99 (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

     IP's can't vote. LittleMountain5 ^{Merry Christmas!} 02:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

111. Support. Per Malleus. If he knows not to use the tools that are over his head, there's no reason he shouldn't have them to help with the simple tasks where he does know how to use them. Choess (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
112. Strong support I'm trying to figure out a reason to not support. Oh, I keep forgetting how to spell his user name. Seriously, best candidate in a while, and will balance out the anti-science crowd in the admin group. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
113. Support I like their spark. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
114. Support No issues I see here. Your work in namespace is admirable, and you show maturity in the answers to the questions. I have every confidence that you will make the project proud. --Chasingsol^(talk) 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
115. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
116. +ve Its been said all up above me but I can't resist pointing out that countless cookie-cutter candidates have dutifully done the "admin experience" tickybox thing. By contrast, Graham has got on and done his own thing and proved his considerable ability both intrinsically and incidentally. He is just about everything I want to see in a bucketwallah. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
117. Support, 'nuff said Agathoclea (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
118. Support - good contributer, able work collaboratively, knows what he does not know and how to read up where necessary. Re opposing concerns, whilst I appreciate where the issues are coming from, per Jimbo's "no big thing" so no reason to withold from someone who might have some valid use of some of the tools some of the time.David Ruben ^Talk 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
119. Support --Aude (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
120. Support. Graham is a content beast. I think all content beasts, especially in the field of GA/FA content, should have the option of admin tools provided they are unlikely to abuse them. This content beast can be trusted. JFW | T@lk 15:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
121. Support. No concerns. Since Graham has obvious diplomatic skills, I'd expect he would participate thoughtfully in the admin areas and not jump in beyond his expertise, until he has learned more. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
122. Support. Good answers to the questions. DiverseMentality 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
123. Strong support: Per User:Dendodge/Admin_criteria/Log#GrahamColm. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
124. Support per the nominations. Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
125. Support.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
126. Must. Pile. On. - Support, seriously. Fine contributions and a calm, clever and civil contributor. Can't think of any reason why he shouldn't be an admin.    SIS  03:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
127. Support per the nominators. Mathsci (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
128. Support per Dylan620 Spudinator (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

     It's a first! I've never been cited in any RfX before! --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

129. Support. Graham has an excellent understanding of the policies that he needs to know to do the tasks that he wants to do. I am also confident that he will verify what he thinks he knows and/or look up any policies he is unfamiliar with before he starts using the tools in areas beyond his immediate interest. I trust him with the tools and it is enough to know that they will make his editing easier - we should be trying to help our excellent content contributors add more excellent content. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Excellent editor, unfortunately I see virtually no activity in admin-related areas, and while some (including myself) might consider it refreshing to find a candidate that doesn't immerse themselves in the standard or become embroiled in ANI drama, I can't ignore this fact. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Wisdom89 --Rhodes 416 12:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
3. While I would generally blindly jump in on the side of my fellow content-creators, as per Wisdom I don't see a lot of admin-activity; not to say you have to be a ANI troll, which I find insufferable, but at least some general interest in mop activities? I think Graham should "fully understand the duties and responsibilities of administrators" before getting the bit, is all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

   I really hate to do this, but after further consideration, I agree with David that potential sysops should understand the duties of an administrator before receiving the mop. I appreciate Graham's article work and quality FAC reviews, but I feel administrators should have at least some experience in admin-related areas. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think perhaps your interpretation of the requirement to "understand the duties of an administrator" differs substantially from mine. In any event, I would certainly distinguish between "an understanding of" and the ability to prove that something had been learnt by rote. As a matter of simple definition, non-administrators can have no significant experience of "admin-related areas", the most contentious of which are undoubtedly blocks and page deletions. I have always failed to see why a footprint at, for instance, AfD, is considered to be anything other than an unhealthy obsession with racking up the brownie points for an upcoming RfA. Just the way it is here though I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

   :( - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   I don't "require" in any sense racking up points, I would just like would-be admins to fully understand what they're jumping into. I'm also uncomfortable with the nomination itself; Graham basically went to Sandy's talk page and said "I want the tools" without any particular compelling rationale. I'd rather he nominated himself rather than essentially trade FAC reviews for supports; not that I have any ill will towards Graham in general, it's just that's the vibe I'm getting from this RfA, and I don't have to like it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   That's not quite correct: 1) I've been offering to nom him for a very long time with no prompting from him (based as much on how I've seen him handle difficult discussions on medical articles as his FAC participation), and 2) he clearly presented a reason for needing the tools, although some of that is on Tim Vickers' page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps I should comment here? Sandy offered to nominate me many times in the past, without my asking. She had her reasons which I have been made aware of here for the first time. In the past, I felt it was too soon. I can see why the way this nomination has been handled by me could look unfair, and David has a point. Perhaps I should have said to Sandy that I was prepared to accept her kind offer now. With the benefit of hindsight, I would have done this a little differently. I apologise to David, and everyone else, for my giving the wrong impression. I hope I'm forgiven. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Tool2Die4 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Any particular reason for your oppose? ^Law _shoot! 06:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   He could just say "per Supports 73 and 85".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Opposes should be explained, not supports. Garion96 (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Why's that? Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Because the 'crat who closes the RfA theoretically weighs the validity of the arguments presented by opposers (although I can't recall ever having seen an RfA that was anything but a vote). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Carnildo's third RfA was such a case. Mike Christie (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - per Wisdom89, and per nomination by clique members. Candidate seems to have little knowledge of, or interest in, most of the work and tools of admin duty. He does not intend, judging by his statement, to contribute much to admin work. Having tools so that his own article work would be made easier for him does not seem to be an adequate justification. Plus the signs of support from an organized wikipedia clique are worrisome, especially since he asked them to nominate him. A candidate should not run because "a few extra buttons" would make his own article writing, and that of a few selected others, easier. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Addendum: Also agree with those who say that an admin position should not be a "nice guy" awards. Having come to appreciate the complexities of admin decision-making, "nice guys", from my observations, are often the most problematic admins, as the "nice" course of action is not always the best in the long run. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Note for the closing Bureaucrat - Mattise is citing me in the oppose. As I stated before, these were reasons to be hesitant, and the character of the individual is not in question. After the individual has shown that they will look to various people for support, especially those who help train admin and to Arbitrators, which show both sides of experience in the community, I am 100% confident that this user will pick up the proper understanding of the tools over time. Since they have committed themselves to not delving into the main areas at the very beginning, then it is certain that they will receive the help and advice from these highly qualified individuals before he acts on powers that may need such understanding. My opinions are my own, and my concerns are my own. I do not wish to be cited as pro or con, or to have others agree with me or disagree with me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   • I'm just making a note for the Crat. They read those things and keep up with the back and forth. I'm just stating that I do not endorse anyone else's view of what I previously stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   An alternate perspective to Mattisse's: granting the tools to Graham costs Wikipedia exactly nothing. Even if he only uses them occasionally to help out with "his" articles (?), the project benefits at no cost. The only risk incurred is if Graham abuses the tools; his long history here and his answers make clear that he intends to proceed cautiously and multilaterally with respect for the learning curve, so abuse doesn't seem a major concern. I'm not sure where the "nice guy award" stuff comes from; Graham has detailed specific instances where he'd find the tools useful. It's not a matter of "rewarding" him - it's a matter of giving him a few additional (free) tools to contribute here. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Using your logic, why not just AGF with everyone, and grant every registered user admin tools? Then, if and when they abuse them, take them away. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   There's a difference between giving AGF and giving the tools to an established user who is already unlikely to abuse the tools and AGF and giving them to a newly registered user of which whom it's quite likely will abuse them immediately; after all, many of our newly registered users do this. It'd be destructive to do the latter, perhaps productive to do the former. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Exactly; as I said, the risk is abuse of the tools. We're not talking about a random registered user plucked off the street here - Graham's long record suggests he's very unlikely to abuse the tools, hence I see no real cost to Wikipedia. Mattisse's argument (leaving aside the clique nonsense) seems to be that Graham won't do enough with the tools to make sysopping him worthwhile. I don't see a problem - even if he uses them once per year, so long as he's not abusing them, we gain. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with Tool2Die4. Why not give the tools to each editor who mostly writes articles, even if as MastCell says, the editor only uses them occasionally to help out with "his" articles? There are many admins who do almost nothing helpful to the project after they get the tools, except pursue their own interests. Why not allow that for every productive editor then? Make a rule 10,000 mainspace edits, or 20,000 or 30,000 mainspace edits - you could even say 75% or all edits must be mainspace! Why pick one editor to give tools to so he can "have extra buttons" to help him write his articles? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not talking about "picking one editor" at random. I will generally support any editor at RfA on the basis of demonstrated maturity, good sense, and commitment to the project's goals, because I've found that those traits - observable in any arena on Wikipedia - predict that someone will be a good admin. It's not a simple numerical matter - I can think of editors with >50,000 edits who lack maturity and sense, and would probably be very poor admins. That's why I don't think a simple edit cutoff would be any better than the current system. MastCell ^Talk 05:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. Icewedge (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose I am particularly worried about the above statement "Never before have I seen such malicious vandalism. If I were an administrator, I could have instantly blocked the contributor for at least enough hours for me not to have to worry all day that such nastiness would be re-added." The IP very likely would have been banned if it had been reported to WP:AIV. At the very least I'd hope that the quick and easy step of warning the user would have been taken. Missing the WP:NFC question didn't help, and then saying "if an editor is not sure they should ask before uploading them" really turned me off. As WP:MOP says, "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information, or in a dispute." Oroso (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Adminship is not an award. It is not recognition for being a nice person. Its not something to be treated lightly. It is a tool, and it has a purpose. As the user stated, he doesn't have much experience with certain features I think this happened in the wrong way. I would have prefered it if he would have gone to someone like Balloonman and went through standard training towards the position. Instead, he basically nominated himself by telling others that he wanted to be nominated. We shouldn't kid ourselves. He wans the tools. The question is why - he has declared that he wants them to help with page protection and moves. Well, moves over redirects is not that common, and page protection should not be happening with someone who has edited a page. This negates those needs right there. Sure, Graham is a great person and a great editor. However, adminship should not just be tossed around as if it is meaningless. It is a lot of work, and it requires a lot of involvement with others about various issues. I had to put in a lot of work just to deal with the blocks of one editor on a minor project. I don't know if Graham has the time or dedication to do this, and I am even less confident because of he route that he took in having this application put through. Yes, I am 100% sure that my concerns will be ignored and that he will easily become an admin. Thats why I am simply neutral and not opposing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of that; I recommend that people check with one of the top admin coaches (Balloonman is a good choice) before applying, and I generally want to see more familiarity with the tools than Graham has, but Graham's a special case. 200 FA reviews this year, and excellent article-creating skills in an area that Wikipedia really needs, and a long, long list of stressful reviewing situations where he was able to constructively criticize without without annoying people. He has at least 3 skills that can't be taught and that we need, and has demonstrated that he feels a connection to all of us and to Wikipedia. That's my impression, and that was the reason for my vote; I wanted to be clear, so when I oppose for some future candidate saying they aren't experienced with the tools, they won't think that votes like this one make me seem arbitrary. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many FAs I have reviewed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 100. I also have a lot of experience with the mop on other projects. I also have a need for moving powers, protecting powers, and viewing deleted pages powers. Am I requesting the mop? No. Because I don't feel as if I am qualified for the situation that Wikipedia is, nor do I feel that there is a real need, although there are fewer admin who watch the poetry pages than there are over on the medical pages. I apply standards equally. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not be at all surprised to see others sharing your view Ottava, and it's not an unreasonable view. My own is slightly different, in that I don't see adminship as any kind of rocket science, rather something that any editor of reasonable intelligence could quickly get to grips with, if they take it step by step. Which I have no doubt that this candidate would do. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked one IP that happened to be the IPv6 nod. That means that if it would have stayed blocked, billions of IPs couldn't have accessed Wikipedia. The situation called for it at the time. However, it is something that requires more skill and training than just walking into a situation without any understanding. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were an option to hand out specific tools – like moving over redirect – instead of the whole toolbelt then I'd very likely be taking a very similar stance to you Ottava. But there isn't, and never likely to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is never a shortage of admin willing to help. Most requests are processed quickly, especially if you go to one directly. The CoI clause would prohibit Graham from using the power on articles that he is involved with, which would make it impossible for him to patrol the medical articles fairly. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It would only make it impossible for him to intervene in those articles in which he had a COI, which I would assume is not every single medical article. He'd have to be a very busy boy indeed if he had a COI in every medical article. But I think we should leave this now, or at least take it elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How will he know there is an IP problem unless he has a page watchlisted? Chances are, he would have the medical pages watch listed because he worked on them. Normally, admin have pages watch listed because they work in Vandalism, 3RR, or other areas and watch list problematic pages. Graham doesn't seem to have interest in being a generic admin to patrol areas outside of his content area, nor would such be helpful to the project as his attention should be kept to the area. Thus, I think CoI would negate most of what Graham would hope to accomplish. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I keep articles that I have rolled back and IPs that I have warned on my Watchlist for a week. I also watch all the FACs that I have commented on along with the many virus articles. My Watchlist is very long—it takes me about 30 minutes to an hour every morning to review it. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So you intend to patrol outside of the medical articles? Could you please make that clearer at the top. Your statement seems to make it seem as if you only want the power for inside medical articles. I would also like you to find an admin to mentor you/train you in the use of the tools. Casliber will probably be far too busy for that, but I am sure there are others willing to step up Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not change my answers at the top now other editors have commented but I will paste this "I watch the "recent changes" page (for relaxation, would you believe, when I am taking a break from writing articles and FAC reviews) and I have had to revert all types of blatant and subtle vandalism." With regard to training and mentoring, I am on good terms with several admins who, I am sure, will be happy to help me. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"standard training towards the position" ... wtf? We have training now? And it's standard? -- Gurch (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes. There are many admin that guide people who want to be admin through the various decision making processes, show them when to act, when not to act, etc, in preparation for adminship. There is also the standard process of immersing oneself in ANI, Vandalism, 3RR, Deletion, etc, and weighing in. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I realise that much. I very much disagree with it being a requirement that people go through these silly "admin coaching" things, though -- Gurch (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now. This one took quite a bit of thought, and I really expected to end up supporting when I saw this RfA. Graham is an excellent article writer, a competent FAC reviewer, and an overall helpful user, but as Wisdom89 pointed out, he has little experience in admin-related areas. Also, the answer to question #1 concerns me; this statement, "But at first, I need to learn how to use the tools correctly and wisely and memorise as much as I can of the Wikipedia policies and essays that relate to them", leaves me to question the candidate's current knowledge of policies. I have no doubt that you will make a fine admin, and you will pass RfA with flying colors, but for now, I remain neutral. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   As a comment for perspective, when I went through RfA I had only a basic knowledge of the policies, knew almost nothing about the deletion process and had only reported a handful of vandals. However, this stuff isn't particularly complicated and you soon pick it up, so as long as you take it reasonably slow you'll have no problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards support I'd like to support, but I can't. I won't oppose on the lack of admin experience issue, but I will neutral on it. Per Julian and Ottava. Sorry :( NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't think giving GrahamColm adminship would either improve or disimprove anything. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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.