- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Statement by closing bureaucrat
I've read through this RFA and it is certainly very close. There are even crat !votes in the support and oppose sections. There are valid points in both support and oppose sections. The most convincing oppose points are the edit protection issues - but they are mostly defensible or merely bold and as for the busted disambiguation link issue I find that to not be a pattern but more of an aberration. I also found the candidate's responses and conduct during the RFA to be quite good and he seems to have learned a lot recently, including during the RFA. In looking at cases where temperament and politeness were mentioned and diffs provided I find most, but not all, of those diffs unconvincing as they seem to me be be merely short and to the point. In summation, while I find there are concerns here, they are not enough for me to not grant adminship. I find the weight of the community consensus to be supportive. On a related note I want to comment on RFA standards in general lately. While I totally agree the standards need to be high, candidates do not need to be perfect and lately I'm seeing all too many users seemingly looking for perfection and opposing if they find even one slip up in a candidate, which they are entitled to do if they choose, but I think all too often that recently the wrench has been clamped too tightly too often. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]