Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fvasconcellos

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

Closed as successful by Cecropia 16:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC) at (76/0/1); Scheduled end time 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) - I'm pleased to nominate Fvasconcellos for adminship. Fvasconcellos joined us in March 2006, and has since found a niche in editing medical and pharmacological articles: Paul Georges Dieulafoy, 5-HT3 antagonist, metformin, Lanreotide, and 5-HT3 receptor are just some examples. I think one of his greatest contributions is his exceptional work drawing and correcting structural formulae of high quality (here are ondansetron and lanreotide for example), which have added context to articles. But he has helped us in many ways other than his excellent article and image contributions: He has showed ability to judge content by reviewing good articles (and stayed on improving them until 3 attained featured article status), and by participating in WP:FAC. He is involved in guideline development and wikiprojects: he has helped design Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and has been an active participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. He's helped with AfD, recent changes patrol, in article categorization, and other gnome like activities. I see him taking on a role in assisting with content based administrative work, like page protection and unprotection, and helping out with main page elements such as helping maintain Did you know?. I think he'd do well with the added responsibility, and ask for your support in this nomination by Alison and myself. Thanks -- Samir 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Alison - I'm absolutely delighted to co-nom an admin candidate of the calibre of Fvasconcellos. He's been here well over a year now and has built up an impressive amount of work. Anyone who edits pharmacological or drug-related articles will doubtlessly have seen his work as he is a master of creating structural formulae and he has contributed a large body of exquisite InkScape work to Commons [1][2]. Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology will be more than familiar with this editor as he's also a significant maintainer of the project. Though his nature is WikiGnomic, his articles appear of a very high quality from the get-go and he prides himself on the quality of his work. Here's just one example. Though an expert in pharma and chemistry, he's also a good all-rounder & I've seen him both posting to AIV and reverting vandalism in the most diverse of places.

As his talk page will attest, Fvasconcellos is an incredibly polite and patient fellow, never BITEy and always willing to help others. He always welcomes new users, even if he's there to issue a warning & I think this speaks volumes about the kind of editor he is. Here's just one example of his interaction with a new editor from just this week. Here's an example of how conscientious he is in his dealings with other editors. Random clicking through his edit history will bring up more and more of the same.

And as Samir already pointed out, he's also been involved in both reviewing and creating Featured Articles. I believe that giving Fvasconcellos the mop and bucket will only enhance his already huge dedication to the project. I cannot speak highly enough of him. Thanks - Alison ☺ 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and am honored. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should anyone have any additional questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to note that Axl (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) both added Support votes for this nomination before it went live. As that is not acceptable, both votes were struck. As per a note left on my Talk page, I have notified Casliber that this request is now live. In order to avoid WP:CANVASS concerns, I have not requested his support, and will not notify Axl. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: At first, I'd like to get my feet wet by helping out at CAT:CSD and WP:AIAV. Although many admins hang around both, I'm always slightly surprised by how quickly they become backlogged. I routinely patrol Special:Newpages and mark inappropriate content for speedy deletion, and while I don't have much experience in XfD, I believe there's a distinct difference in closing such discussions and taking action on pages tagged for speedying, and am confident that my understanding of the deletion policy, CSD and common sense are more than enough to act appropriately. Further down the road, I'd very much like to help out at WP:RFPP. I believe protection is a necessary "evil", and find it unfortunate that many editors have a negative attitude towards it; when guided by common sense and regarded as an ancillary resource to discussion, protection helps keep Wikipedia encyclopedic as it should be. I'd also have an interest in moving and merging procedure, template maintenance, editing protected pages or templates when requested, helping maintain the Main Page… stop me if I'm getting too general :) I would basically be glad to help at any particularly underserved administrative areas where I could be useful.

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

A: I am most proud of my image uploads and my contributions to WikiProject Pharmacology. I have contributed about 800–900 skeletal formulae to the Wikimedia Commons, both to articles I find by myself and as per requests on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request, Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures and its subcategories. I have also created and uploaded many molecular models (such as this one), protein images (such as these) and vector diagrams—mostly by request, and several of which now illustrate FAs :) I am quite proud of being able to contribute free content (I release all images I create to the Public Domain) to a somewhat technical area that still requires some artistic sensibility.

As for medical and pharmaceutical topics, I first started contributing to them on WikiProject Drugs; I brought WP:DRUGS to WP:PHARM's attention when the latter was formed, and sort of helped with their subsequent merge discussion. Since then I've kept myself in the loop in all project-related discussions, even though it's not the most active of WikiProjects; I frequently assess pharmacology articles, and reply to queries on the project Talk page whenever I can be of use. Recently I have been clearing out Category:Uncategorised pharmacology articles.

Now for article content: I am not the most prolific creator of new articles, as I like to thoroughly research a topic before writing about it and tend to add only when I find an omission (i.e. something I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia and don't—such was the case with Paul Georges Dieulafoy and 5-HT3 antagonist) and not just because I think "Hmm, this'd look cool on WP". I also consider myself a good proofreader and a fair copy editor, and frequently scan pages for MoS trouble, format references and add them when necessary, convert embedded links to footnotes when appropriate etc. I'm also proud of my participation in FAC, although I'm not a regular, and in the Featured Article review of Mozilla Firefox, where I took part in a nice, enlightening discussion on the reliability of certain sources.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I honestly don't think I've ever been in any serious conflict with regard to content or whatnot. Although I don't consciously avoid conflict, I do try to avoid causing it when possible. If (when) confronted with such a situation, I would first try to discuss it as thoroughly as possible with the other parties involved; then, ask for external input if it was requested, or if I thought it would help—from WikiProjects, experienced editors, and/or (other) administrators; and proceed to formal dispute resolution resources only if necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Nishkid64

4. Could you please explain in what situations would you best see fit to semi-protect or fully protect an article? Please give a thorough explanation.

A: It appears I did not express myself as clearly as I thought—let me elaborate: I would be hesitant to fully protect an article if there was no discussion going on as to the reason why protection was requested (i.e. in case of a "simple" content dispute between two editors who are simply duking it out in edit summaries, there's really no point in protecting the page). I would never protect a page as a way of directing attention to the issues which would lead me to protect it; I would only use full protection (which I do find damaging unless used with generous common sense) to maintain the integrity of a page, or, when that's not possible, to prevent further deterioration of the page's content (now I sound like a lawyer :). As for semi-protection, I believe it is most effective in the case of multiple, frequent (several times a day) vandalism coming from multiple non-registered users. I'd like to point out Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article I watch closely and recently requested semi-protection for: it is a comprehensive article, arguably very popular and probably a source of information for many readers and users, and is a constant target of IP vandalism. By checking the history one may see an almost complete absence of positive IP edits (something I would certainly take into account—if an article is being actively and positively edited by an(some) IP(s), sprot could be detrimental) and the bulk of registered edits are reversion of vandalism. This is a "classic" case of an article I would protect at a glance. I hope I've clarified my position—if you would like me to elaborate further, feel free to ask me to :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification here, will cross-post should anyone find it necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really Optional questions from Twooars

5. I am only asking this because you mentioned CSD and common sense :). I want to know how you would interpret IAR with respect to wikipedia's deletion policy, especially CSD, which you have expressed interest in. (What I basically want to know is how flexible or inflexible you are on CSD). Please try to give as broad and general an answer as possible. Thanks. I will not comment at all either way in your RfA discussion if you choose not to answer this. People will probably cry fowl if you answer this either way.

Really Optional Answer. I have a tiny problem with IAR, which is its broad, all-encompassing and fearsome potential for misuse. At least at first, I would not be willing to exercise too much flexibility when speedying articles: the criteria are finite, well-defined if broad and, in doubt, there's always PROD and AfD. I've seen some admins speedily delete hoaxes which have been put up for AfD under CSD G1 (i.e. as patent nonsense). I mention this specific example as I've put hoaxes up for deletion myself, rather than slap {{db-nonsense}} on them, as CSD G1 specifically excludes hoaxes, while WP:HOAX says that they are generally not speedy candidates. As I said above, I think it's a question of common sense. If something has been tagged as a hoax and is obviously nonsense ("John Doe is President of the World, he was born in 1776 and recently outlawed wearing white shoes after Labor Day") it obviously meets CSD G1—hence the patent in patent nonsense. I believe admins should have more leeway on articles on bands, for instance—WP:MUSIC is more conducive to an AfD discussion than to speedy deletion, as it is supposed to be and as it clearly states; that said, I wouldn't hesitate to delete an article that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, which clearly meets CSD—note assert: whether or not the subject is notable has no bearing on CSD: an assertion of notability is the official cutoff. I'm sorry if this was a circular or unclear answer :)
In short: I am, and will be if this RfA is successful, flexible on CSD within the limits of my common sense. No more, no less. I'm bold but not reckless, and aware and respectful of process but not a total policy wonk. I know that's hard to measure, but I hope my contributions speak for themselves. BTW, I've never, to the best of my knowledge, tagged an article for speedy deletion which was not deleted or was sent to another venue instead. Take from that what you will :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5a. Ok, I have to ask this: What do you think of the speedy deletion of the Allison Stokke article assuming that assertion of notability was not in question? You would have to check on the relevant AfD and Deletion Review for context. Please comment only on the speedy deletion part.it is really optional this time too. :)

Most Optional Answer Ever: In my view, this is a clear-cut case of a "discretionary speedy": admin(s) use(s) criterion of dubious (IMHO! IM-oh-so-so-HO!!!) applicability as a reason to delete due to legitimate concern (I'd say WP:BLP). Long story short, I wouldn't have speedied the article. I haven't seen the article as it was at the time of first speedy deletion (if any admin would like to send it to me, I'll gladly provide a "further" review—probably a good idea, don't want to sound like an idiot here) but, from what I can see, this was deleted due to BLP concerns under the guise (this is not an accusation) of A7. Valid? Maybe. Would I have done the same? No. Not at all. I won't comment on the AfD or DRV as you've asked me not to, but that's my take on the speedy deletion. I'm open to evidence to the contrary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A. Wow—believe it or not, this is the toughest to answer. An exclusive list of my favorite articles would be impossible to compile; sort of like a list of your Top 5 favorite albums :) I've lost count of how many articles I've edited on WP, and I've certainly read far more than I've edited. To me, "favorite" articles are invariably those I'm somehow proud of, be it due to how I helped improve them or to how I feel they showcase the best of Wikipedia. Off the top of my head, I'd have to say I'm very fond of Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (its subject notwithstanding). In my humble opinion, this article has been an example of Wikipedia's finest work since it was created, from news-like "coverage" while events were actively progressing—I am very interested in the role of Wikipedia as a news medium, and its adequacy and reliability as such—, through an almost fierce dedication of its editors to using the best possible sources available, to civil and productive discussion on the Talk page when conflicts arose. It's now a GA, and I'm sure it will make FA in due time. I'm also proud of orlistat, an article to which I am probably the main contributor (COI here :), simply because I believe I helped it reach a pretty good level of accuracy and comprehensiveness; that's ultimately what it's about—this is, after all, an encyclopedia. Tourette syndrome is also one of my favorite articles: it truly exemplifies some of WP's finest work; if memory serves, it was my first contact with the FAC process; and I also had a tiny part in improving it. Interestingly (to me at least), all articles I consider personal "favorites", including and besides those I've mentioned above, have introduced me to editors I have since worked with and greatly respect—IMHO, no article can showcase WP's best if it does not showcase the project's collaborative nature. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Fvasconcellos' edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Fvasconcellos: Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos before commenting.

Support

1. Support, without reservations. Fantastic contributor, always ready to help. Deeply involved in admin-related tasks. Delightful to work with. Kind, civil and cheerful. Gosh, he's the very model of a modern wikipedian! Phaedriel - 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support - I've been trying to think of some pharmacological pun all day to go with this, but it's just not happening! Fvasconcellos is an amazing editor, who basically runs the pharmacology wikiproject. He knows the inclusion guidlines like the back of his hands and I have full trust in his admin abilities. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support A friendly, helpful and efficient editor with particular expertise in images. Also a strong edit record and broad experience. TimVickers 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - this candidate is clearly very strong in the areas many admins (including myself) lack, i.e. article-writing and collaboration. Good editcount, impressive candidate. Walton^Assistance! 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Peacent 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Per nom. --Mschel 16:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support as per nom and responses to questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Co-nom Support - but of course! - Alison ☺ 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - I'm impressed by the answers to the questions. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Excellent, experienced, level-headed editor will be a great admin. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Concerns cleared up in Q4. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support- Excellent editor. Boricuaeddie ^{Spread the love!} 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, good answers. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support I am impressed with answers to the questions, the answers are very well thought out. I am also impressed with the article writing. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 19:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support I am sure anyone nominated by both Samir and Alison will make a good administrator. Acalamari 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support An intelligent, productive, reliable, responsible editor who will make a fine administrator. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I got my answers. Though from his interactions, he seems way too nice. Methinks he is gaming the RfA ;-)- TwoOars 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I assure you it is only a veneer of civility (mwahahahaha). No, seriously. I only accepted because I couldn't take the pressure :) Ed had offered to nominate me last year, and I wasn't ready—I hope I'm ready now, whatever the outcome :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support Good 'pedia builder.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support He almost always beats me to fix the vandalism in my watchlist and has time to add a humorous edit summary. An artist and a gentleman. Colin°^Talk 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Looks good. I like the look of the contrib history, the question answers are good, and I have great respect for the judgment of the nominators. Clearly a trustworthy user. No issues. WjBscribe 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Good collaborator, cool-headed, contributions show a dedication to the project. No reservations at all; just the kind of editor who should be sysopped. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support No reasonable objections from me Black Harry 02:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Merovingian ※ Talk 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support, no problems at all. –Sebi ~ 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Seems a good candidate and won't abuse admin tools.. --Dark Falls ^talk 05:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support as co-nominator -- Samir 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support as someone with common sense, who knows how to explain his positions tactfully. DGG 08:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. SupportI have no reservations whatsoever. Jmlk17 10:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strong Support - An excellent Contributor...--Cometstyles 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, looks like the candidate can be trusted with the mop. --Spike Wilbury 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong support. Fv is not only a gentleman and excellent editor, but also a "jack-of-all-trades", willing to help out with a kind and helpful word whenever and wherever needed — whether vandalfighting on featured articles or obscure biographies, translating, working on pharmacology, medical or computer articles, or policy issues such as WP:MOS. No reservations whatsoever; Wikipedia needs more like him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support with pleasure; FV is an excellent editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support one of the best. Crum375 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. 'Support why not? Lmc169 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - looks pretty good to me. Deb 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - Great answers+ contributions. RuneWiki777 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support fantastic contributor, really nice guy, knows his way around. Strongest support I've given this month, I'm pretty sure. *checks* Yep! ;) Riana ⁂ 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support per reasons set forth on my userpage. Edivorce 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support; Sandy said pretty much everything I was going to say. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Advanced life support. Sterling editor, content-heavy yet fully up to steam with policy. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Strong, thoughtful contributor with excellent community interactions. Bonus: good sense of humor. Extra-bonus: doesn't take himself too seriously. -- MarcoTolo 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support A good admin I think you will be. Captain panda 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support A great candidate that knows the rules, and knows how to properly implement them. Good luck :) Matt - TheFearow 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support stirling supporter of pharm/medical projects, polite editor, and excellent approach in answering Qs above. Will make an ecellent admin. David Ruben ^Talk 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. He is reliable, friendly, helpful, and a all around good editor. Good luck:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support -- Per Nom. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Absolutely. FV has made fine contributions. I believe I participated in the FAR discussion he cites, and I found him willing to both talk and make fixes where they were pointed out. Marskell 08:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Terence 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support I think you will see that his kindness and patience will go a long way in his admin work. Certainly conflicts will arise but he can diffuse the anger. After all, "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!" JodyB _talk 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support A fine editor I'm sure he can handle the stress of adminship fine. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Strong support A great candidate who is knowledgeable, helpful, civil, and who writes articles, always a plus in my book. --Kyoko 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Strong support interacts great with other users and I'm sure won't misuse the tools.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. El_C 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. The candidate has a great record of contributions and the responses to the questions illustrate an excellent understanding of policy and an ideal approach to avoiding unnecessary conflicts. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I've run into Fvasconcellos a couple of times. After creating a stub for a drug... I'd come back and find it filled-out with more detail by one Fvasconcellos (e.g. the Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors- Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin, Vildagliptin). The edits always seemed to be right on the mark. I imagine with the attention to detail and meticulous editing I've seen-- they'd make a great admin. Nephron  T|C 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Good contributor, seems sensible. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support per candidate's overall record. No concerns. Newyorkbrad 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support – Obviously an excellent reputation, and good answers to the questions. --Paul Erik 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Terence 06:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Double vote, see above. —AldeBaer 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

61. Support. No indicators whatsoever that the candidate might inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —AldeBaer 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
62. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong Support a very fine, model Wikipedian. Would make an ideal administrator. I'm glad I didn't miss this one. —Anas ^talk? 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - because oppose and neutral don't even seem an appropriate option. Aaah. If only every editor could have your calibre and integrity. R_Orange 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - This appears to be a capable and experienced hand. Modernist 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support A very experienced user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support seems like a very good person. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Bucketsofg 02:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Fvasconcellos is always helpful and dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Axl 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. This is a very capable candidate. SU Linguist 16:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support beautiful... just... beautiful ~ Infrangible 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support absolutely. Consistently knowledgeable and always a pleasure to work with. Opabinia regalis 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Helpful, capable candidate. Majoreditor 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support No reason will not make a great admin. Davewild 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Constructive editor with vast contributions made and will definitely make positive use of any other facilities.Shyamal 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - as Fvasconcellos is an exceptional editor, a kind person and an other admin in the medical sections would be absolutely helpful. Go on! NCurse _work 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral pending answer to question. I am a little worried regarding the bit about page protection in your answer to Q1. I get the feeling that you think protection may seem like a way for getting users to discuss on the talk page. Knowing this, I'm not totally sure how you would handle full protection requests at WP:RFPP. Any type of article protection should be used only when necessary, and from my interpretation of your answer to Q1, it would seem like your major intention for full protection is to get a discussion going on the talk page. Even with full protection requests, there are times when some requests should be denied, and others should be granted. I won't get into specifics, but I do hope you'll address my concern in the answer to Q4. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than fair :) I guess I didn't make myself very clear, sorry. I've replied to your question. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. No conflicts? Ever? That worries me. You're about to encounter loads of conflicts when you get promoted to the esteemed rank of Abuse Magnet. Your contributions and the testimonials by others show you're working hard to help Wikipedia, which would normally lead me to support, but we have no idea how you will handle under stress, which would tempt me to oppose out of caution. That leaves me neutral. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, more than fair a concern. I'm well aware of the increased exposure to conflict which comes with adminship, and I also think there's quite a difference between conflict and abuse. If you'd like to see me handle a stressful situation, I can only point you to this exchange between myself and Tony1 (talk · contribs). Although it didn't actually stress me, and I wouldn't consider it a conflict at all—simply a discussion between myself and an editor I greatly respect—one could argue there was a potential for conflict. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No conflicts is not the same as no differences. Fvasconcellos took a different position on a featured article review than I did, and as is typical in encounters with Fv, it didn't result in a conflict because of how he handles himself when confronted with differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 June 2007 (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.