# Errrr. This really doesn't feel good - my gut says to vote yes, because he's a good editor, but my brain says to vote oppose, because he has a bit too much trouble with other editors. And my brain is the one that votes. Maybe if he can get through another three months without substantial conflict? DS 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
#Neutral. Not sure I can properly verbalize why at this point - it's certainly nothing like the shitstorm that erupted with User:Tony1's RfA, it's just... I dunno. Some of the unanswered questions, some of the issues of insufficient participation... DS 00:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
# Eh, sure. We had a long conversation on IRC about what he does, what he's done, and what he can do, and I'm persuaded. DS 01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
# Just spent a pleasant fifteen minutes skimming through CC's edit history. Very, very, very impressive material. Support. DS 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
# I concur; it's too soon. Leave me a message in three months, and I'll vote for you then (unless you've gone insane in the meantime); for now, however, oppose reluctantly. DS 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
#Oppose. I'm uncomfortable with the... with the type of edits which this user mostly makes. 1900 welcomes out of only 6000 edits, in three months? So many outdated Britannicae? And... I don't know. Doesn't feel right, yet. Maybe in a few more months. DS 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
# Despite his having been locked in a stasis tube for 30 years, and the fact that each use of his powers leads to the death of a random human somewhere on the planet, I vote support. DS 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
# Strong support. Anyone who can ask to be temporarily blocked so as to equitably resolve a dispute with another editor has the proper attitude. HRE is very, very intent on being careful and polite to everyone, even those who feel that he hates them because of the circumstances of their birth - which, from our conversations, I can tell he does not do. DS 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
# If we could somehow combine this editor with User:Ryulong, we'd have a damn-near perfect admin candidate. However, the laws on human experimentation being what they are, I am forced to oppose... for now. DS 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
#Polite oppose. An excellent editor, but one who needs to work on civility some more. Not everyone who makes a bad edit does so out of assholishness. DS 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
# I am uncomfortable with this user's stance on many topics. A decent editor, but I am concerned that his application of policy would be flawed. Therefore, I must oppose. Also, Java applets are often a good thing, but they would be hell on accessibility. DS 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
# Regrettably, I must concur. This is not the Wikipedia of five years ago, or even three years ago. Thousands of people - tens of thousands - edit not just every day, but every hour; as such, interacting with them has become of greater import. Kpjas is a kickass editor, but an admin also has to have the requisite people skills to deal with upset contributors - and with vandals, and well-meaning POV-pushers, and curious neophytes experimenting. I do not support at this time. DS 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
# Although I respect this editor, I would feel uncomfortable granting her the admin tools; consequently, I must oppose. DS 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
# Thank you for addressing my concerns. Since they are not relevant to your case, I hereby state that I support your becoming an administrator. DS 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
# I honestly can't support this candidate, because some of his answers are far from satisfactory, but neither can I unequivocally oppose; I am neutral. DS 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
# I'm really not comfortable with giving him admin privileges again. It's just... we've got too much garbage, and extreme inclusionism will lead to people submitting articles on their dogs (I'm not exaggerating, I deleted one this afternoon). It just makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to oppose, but... meh. Neutral.DS 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
# As usual, I voice my support as nominator (albeit somewhat prematurely, since I'm pretty sure it's too early in his time zone for him to be online. But he did tell me he'd accept the nomination). DS 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
# Regretful oppose. The canvassing is just icing on the cake, really - Tenebrae is a good editor, but has too many problems interacting with others. And we already do have admins who are interested in comic books (example: me). DS 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
# I do not feel that this user is ready, as of yet, to use the tools, as he is (as per Matthew) insufficiently familiar with policy and guidelines. Soon, grasshopper. Soon. For now, I oppose. DS 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
# I see significant flaws in this editor's understanding of policy in many areas; plus, the whole homophobia thing = not good. Oppose, as per N. DS 00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
# I'm sorry. Although from what I've seen Crockspot might make a good administrator, there's enough that makes me too uncomfortable to support him. I must regretfully oppose. DS 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
# This editor's contributions most certainly do not keep the tent wher it is, and therefore I support the proposal. (Trust me, it's far too complicated to explain the reference; however, I expect Elkman will get it.) DS 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
# One thing that an admin has to be able to do is to make concessions on minor points, so as to be able to stand their ground on major issues. To be standing his ground on this particular issue shows poor judgment. I regretfully oppose. DS 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
# Bleh. I was going to nominate this user in about a month's time. I also have to say that I'm impressed by the degree of maturity shown by CML's willingness to change his username upon learning that someone else found it genuinely offensive. (Yes, this is my support.) DS 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
# Going to have to go with Alison on this one. A good editor, will most likely be an excellent admin, but I'd rather he spend a month or so getting his feet wet in projectspace before he's given the tools. DS (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
# I think Ed is a very nice, very pleasant man, who genuinely means well and sincerely wants to help the project, and I thoroughly regret that I must oppose him. DS (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
# Ottava Rima makes some good points. I'm not saying that Suntag isn't trustworthy, but simply that he hasn't completely shown himself to be trustworthy yet. Try again in a few more months, maybe. Do some more article content too. DS (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
# I've had some very good interactions with this user, but the oppose comments indicate that these may not have been the norm. I'll go with neutral. DS (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
#I dunno, I'm just not comfortable for some reason I can't verbalize at this point. For now, I must regretfully oppose. DS (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Actually, I'm not sure if I'm thinking of the right person. Not ready to oppose or support yet. DS (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
# Sorry, the drama attached to someone who seems to otherwise be an excellent candidate means that I must regretfully opppose. DS (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
#Strong oppose. On multiple occasions, I have challenged Logan re: his interpretations of policy; his response is invariably to leave. DS (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
