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

Horologium[edit]

Final (100/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 11:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium (talk · contribs)

Horologium is a user I originally nominated for adminship back in January. He declined, and I tried again recently, which he has accepted. He's been editing for quite some time, and has done a lot of work for the Florida WikiProject. Where I've come across him mainly is at WP:UCFD. He participates there plenty, and we could always use more admins there to help with the occasional difficult close where all the other admin frequenters already voted. He contributes over all namespaces, even doing things as simple as adding rationales to images. Horologium will, quite bluntly, be a great addition to the administrators of Wikipedia. Wizardman 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Black Falcon - I am happy to join jc37 and Wizardman in nominating Horologium for adminship. Since joining Wikipedia in 2006, Horologium has become a regular participant in WikiProject Florida and an active contributor to Wikipedia's coverage of Florida (example diff). He has made around 8500 edits, these two impressive edits to Environment of Florida ( DYK) and History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, both of which essentially created full-length articles, being among them.

In addition to mainspace editing, Horologium is involved in multiple areas of project maintenance, including various deletion discussion venues and admin noticeboards. He is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and processes, and also possesses the patience and diligence that is needed for adminship, as evidenced by his tremendous work (see here for one example) to clean up and standardise our collection of language user categories (used to assist translation efforts).

Horologium is an experienced, responsible, and trustworthy contributor, and the project could only benefit from giving him the tools. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by jc37 - Well the two above pretty much said much of what I was going to say. (User:Black Falcon in particular, with his incessant bad habit of doing research, and adding supportive references and links to everything. What does he think this is? An encyclopedia, or something?) - And before you wonder if that parenthetical joke is out-of-context and has nothing to do with the nom, let me set you straight. One of the reasons I'm nominating Horologium is his sense of humour. See, it takes the ability to "step back" sometimes and "find the funny". And he can and does. Has he been frustrated at times? Yes, he has. Has he also "stepped back" a bit from the situation at those times? Yes he has. And I have to tell you: The day he dropped a note on my talk page asking me to look over his version of the article on Environment of Florida, not knowing if I had even a clue about florida. (Little to none - isn't that a suburb of Disneyland or something?) And then when I looked, I was stunned at the difference between the previous stub and his new fleshed out version, the very next edit. (The references in particular, enough to make Black Falcon jealous, I would think.) Expansion and ReOrg just don't give the work he did justice. Since then he's also been pretty heavily involved in policy and process discussions throughout Wikipedia. Opinionated? He is. Trustworthy? That too. In short, I support : ) - jc37 08:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored to accept the nomination. Horologium (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Much of my activity has been in one of the more neglected corners of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, and I would assist the handful of other admins there in closing discussions. I'd also participate in closing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. While I have not been particularly active at Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, I do understand the criteria, and can work on that backlog as well. Of course, I can always look at the Wikipedia:Administrative backlog and see where backlogs currently exist.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As far as creation of new content or expansion of old material, I was a significant contributor to Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Coral Springs, Florida, both of which have achieved Good Article status, and I was the primary author of two well-referenced articles, History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Environment of Florida, both of which are probably close to Good Article status. On the "removal of inappropriate content" front, my contributions at WP:UCFD have assisted in the elimination of an astonishing number of needless or divisive categories.
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: Like most editors, I have encountered a few situations where I have come into conflict with other users. I tend to stand my ground, but will withdraw from articles where there is little or no chance of convincing the other party that policy trumps personal views. Matt Sanchez was the most controversial article in which I have substantially participated; after several conflicts on the talk page with a now-indefinitely blocked editor, I withdrew from participation in that article for almost three months. My contribution history shows a large number of contributions to article talk pages; I try to avoid unilateral editing, and look for consensus before making major changes. As an admin, I will tend towards the Egour admin mold rather than the Rouge admin archetype, but I recognize that occasionally bold edits are necessary to jump-start improvements to a stagnant article.
Optional questions from jc37
4. In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, could you describe/summarise:
  • 4a. Generally, why and when should someone be blocked?
  • A: Blocking should be used as a preventative measure when warnings and discussion fail to remedy a continuing behavioral problem. Edit-warring, vandalism, hostility towards other users, spamming and copyright violations should be dealt with through a series of escalating warnings, with a block issued after a final warning. Legal threats, disclosure of another user's personal information, threats of violence, and illegal activities (such as the upload of child pornography) are grounds for an immediate block. Blocking a user with whom you are directly involved with a conflict is not acceptable; another administrator should issue any blocks. Use of the various administrators' noticeboards is available if assistance is required.
  • A: During an edit war among multiple registered users, full protection may be required. Persistent attacks from multiple sources or even a single user IP-hopping may be combated through semi-protection. Certain high-risk templates and pages should be fully protected indefinitely to prevent widespread disruption by a vandal familiar with template syntax.
  • 4c. When would it be appropriate to speedily delete a page?
  • A: Any page that fails Speedy deletion criteria may be deleted. Tagged articles should be read through to verify that they qualify, and their history viewed, to ensure that there is not a prior revision which does not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. I personally will not tag or delete any article under CSD categories A1, A3, or A7 that was created less than 15 minutes previously or has been edited multiple times by the article creator in the previous 30 minutes, because often article creation is done through sequential edits, and waiting allows the creator time to build up the article to assert notability and establish context. Tagging such as [1], less than one minute after the article was created, is absurd.
  • A: Consensus is highly dependent on context. On article talk pages, content discussions should be resolved based on the strength of the arguments, and often requires finding a common middle ground, where most editors are satisfied with the result. Consensus does not mean that everyone is satisfied, and sometimes a few editors will not agree to any compromise; in cases where that is an issue, attempt to reduce the scope of the discussion to make incremental changes which satisfy all concerned. Keep in mind that consensus does not trump policy. XFD discussions are different, as they are often a binary decision (keep or delete, with "no consensus" defaulting to keep), and the closing admin must weigh the merits of the issues before deciding. Five users who cite relevant policies may often provide more weight than 20 users whose arguments consist of "I like it/I don't like it" or "It's useful/It's not useful" or the like. (Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay which provides a lengthy list of examples.) DRV is based on weight of arguments, and should not be a re-debate of the original XfD, but rather a determination of whether the closure was correct according to policy. Page move discussions are handled similar to article talk pages, but again, are ultimately a binary choice (move or remain).
  • 4e. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First, ask myself if this is a page on which I have a substantial editing history or a closely related topic (in which case intervention would be inappropriate), a subject in which I have no knowledge (intervention might not be appropriate) or the participants are ones with whom I have interacted previously (which could bring up CoI issues, particularly if the interactions were especially cordial or acrimonious). If that is the case, address the issue on the appropriate Aministrators' noticeboard. If that is not the case, go to the page in question and view the edit history to determine if there is an edit war in progress. If only one or two people are edit warring, warn the participants and block (in necessary) for 3RR violations. If multiple editors are involved, protect the page as appropriate (full protection if one or more of the editors are established editors, otherwise semi-protection), and urge the involved parties to solve their dispute on the article talk page. Before locking an article with full protection, ensure that there are no BLP violations or other policy violations, but otherwise do not engage in editing. If the dispute between JohnDoe and JaneRoe is a protracted reversion tussle rather than an edit war, urge both parties to discuss before reverting, and inform them of the various dispute resolution procedures available.
Optional Question from Dominik92
5 What group of editors do you dislike the most on Wikipedia (i.e. vandals, trolls, spammers etc.), why and have you had any really unpleasant encounters with them?
A: Well, the group I dislike the most would be vandals, because there are so many of them. I've had a few encounters with trolls and spammers, but vandals far outnumber both of those groups combined. (I'd consider spammers to be a form of vandal, for what it's worth). The only vandal that I have had significant negative interaction with was actually a spammer; you can see the confrontation we had in my at this discussion in my talk archives. I had only been actively editing for a month at this point, and my responses to this incident were not my best moment, but the links I supplied show that the conflict was not just with me. Most of the vandals I have encountered are one-offs who log in under an IP address, deface a few pages, and then disappear forever. Horologium (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Keepscases
6. Could you walk outside on a clear night, without a telescope, star map or anything like that, and pick out the Horologium constellation accurately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sadly, no, because its declination is pretty far south, and even α Horologii, the brightest star, is not very bright. In the winter, most of the constellation appears over the horizon here, but I doubt I could pick it out even with a star chart. Horologium (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Espresso Addict
7. Would you care to comment on your recent description ([2]) of a user category as "bloody worthless"?
A: In that particular case, "bloody" was meant as both an intensifier and as a metaphor; after the first (long and contentious) discussion at UCFD, I was mightily disappointed by the consensus, but chose not to contest it at DRV. After the second UCFD (initiated when a user was blocked over this category) and the rehashing of the debate at DRV, a lot of words (the metaphorical blood) had been written over this category, and I had hoped that Wikipedia had seen the end of the user category, which still exists (as a redlink) on several editor's userpages. Horologium (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, could you link to the various debates? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links added. Horologium (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Jeandré du Toit
8. As an admin, how would you respond to admin Viridae's April 1 edits? -- Jeandré, 2008-04-24t20:48z
A: I would have contacted him after his first edit and warned him, and the second time I would have blocked him and addressed the block on AN/I. April Fools jokes on Wikipedia are handled in a subtle and dignified fashion; freaking people out with block templates and vandalising the front page is neither terribly amusing nor professional. While we are not "professionals", per se, we are working on a serious project, and "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer by people with a stick up their lavender passageway" is tasteless and certainly does nothing to enhance the project's image. The "doppelganger" articles in DYK and the FA were amusing, and the edit to the MediaWiki:Delete tab ("nuke this page") was hysterical. The latter was great because it was not seen by the public, but was to be enjoyed by people active in the project, without causing hysteria like the false block message. Horologium (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from daveh4h
9. Do you currently use Wikipedia related IRC channels? What do you use them for? Do you have any feelings or opinions about the #admins IRC channel? If this RfA is successful, do you plan on accessing the admins IRC channel? If you are going to ask for access, what do you plan on using the admins IRC channel for?
A: I have used #wikipedia-en four or five times (including just a moment ago, when I ducked in to see which channel was loaded in mIRC); most of the time just to see what it was like, and once to find an admin to update WP:DYK after it was more than an hour overdue. I haven't used any of the other channels. My concerns about the admin channel relate primarily to some of the decisions that have taken place there (the extremely imprudent blocking of Badlydrawnjeff[3]—which was confirmed to have been discussed on IRC[4]—and a few others), and fully believe that any decisions about blocks which do not involve privacy concerns should be discussed on-WP, but I don't have a problem with the existence of the channel. I am undecided about requesting access, as I am not a big IRC user anyway, but I may access it to see what is going on. I don't plan to use it for discussions of blocks or other on-wiki actions that need transparency. Horologium (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Kingrock
10. What is your take on user blocks? In other words how do you feel users should be punished. Do you believe that blocks are an adiquit way to punish the editors. King Rock Go 'Skins! 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Blocks are not used for punishment. Blocks are used as a preventative manner, when discussion and warnings fail to correct the behavioral problem. See my response to question 4a from User:Jc37 (above) for a more verbose answer. Horologium (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. beat the nom support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beat all three Nos; Support Clearly dedicated to the project and knows how to take it easy. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support. Should have accepted that earlier nomination :). Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Excellent answers. Axl (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rudget 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, we need more admins with a sense of humour. Perusing this user's edits, there is no indication that they will abuse or misuse the tools if they get them, so there is no reason not to Support that I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Definitely. --Kbdank71 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Number 9 and still beat the noms? Anyway, excellent editor with lots of experience. Useight (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I see declined past nominations as prima facie evidence of a healthy view of oneself. This candidate seems both competent and trustworthy. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Ready for the mop. --SharkfaceT/C 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as nom number one. Wizardman 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Lots of experience and a dedication to the project. Seems trustworthy, too. κaτaʟavenoTC 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, of course, would not abuse the tools. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- Naerii 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yup. Great noms. Great answers. Clean talkpage/archives. Civil, courteous, but also direct communicator. Don't see anything but positive results in giving you extra buttons. Happy to support, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Indeed. User discusses thoroughly arguments at AfD (a place where the candidate wishes to work) and the answers to the questions demonstrate an exceedingly high level of policy and guideline comprehension. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Better-late-than-never support (by co-nom). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - My primary interactions with Horologium have been around the Matt Sanchez article. Horologium has impressed me with his fairness and patience in dealing with a very tendentious situation. I trust him to use the tools appropriately. Aleta Sing 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. The candidate has a Goatee beard. Oh, and the contributions, civility, policy knowledge and open and helpful attitude. But mostly the beard. :) Pedro :  Chat  17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. You mean he isn't one? (Also, on first read of Pedro's comment, I thought he said a goatse beard...) Mr.Z-man 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Yep. Tan | 39 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Worthy of using the tools for good and helping out the Wikipedia community. Zenlax T C S 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes. Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Good answers, good comments, and I like his articles, too. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -- mainly per this user's AFD work ; ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No evidence that this user will abuse the tools, thus I'd support them becoming an admin. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Obviously. VegaDark (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support yep, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support good luck! Pundit|utter 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. He's ok by me. -JodyB talk 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Definitely. The DominatorTalkEdits 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support sure GtstrickyTalk or C 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Answer to question 1 and especially 8. We need more admins that give some room for humor, but also know where to draw the line.--KojiDude (Contributions) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support Sensible and knowledgeable. DGG (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Should be fine. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Appears worthy of community trust -- Avi (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Skills look good, like the answer to the last question. King Pickle (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Isn't he already one... MBisanz talk 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Per Wizardman (talk · contribs), and per some great content contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Ka Pai. Good on you. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Low mainspace contributions, so only Weak Support. But there's a record of article building and answers to questions are competent. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Of course Support X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Great answers. – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes...signature rings a bell as someone who's always insightful and useful. Good luck with them. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Has seemed like a sensible guy whenever I've worked with him. Epbr123 (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seems to me to be a humble, kind individual, with no potential for abuse. Also, has a sense of humor.  ;) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Long-term editor with solid contributions in a range of areas, and good answers to the added questions. I'm still a touch concerned over the comment I mentioned, but on reading the debates I can see that they had got to a point where frustration was only human. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - No concerns, and the kind of editor I like to see becoming an admin. Risker (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support due to no memorable negative interactions or other obvious signs of concern. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Aye - switched from neutral, see below. Black Kite 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support by default, since I can't find anything wrong with you. :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - no problems here :) - Alison ❤ 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, good candidate. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, I was surprised Horologium wasn't already. Bastique demandez 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support The "bloody worthless" comment rubs me the wrong way, but I'm not one who should be casting stones about strict civility. Whatever the case, still a net positive. VanTucky 00:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom, Great user. SpencerT♦C 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support As per Black Falcon and user has been around since August 2006 with over 8000 edits including over 2000 mainspace edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support strong editor who will make a fine sysop. Doczilla STOMP! 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I have disagreed with this editor, discussed our disagreements, and ended up laughing. Candidate passes the bar for experience and judgment. BusterD (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per all above. Good luck! GlassCobra 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, looks good. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I've seen this user around my watchlist a lot, good answers to questions, no reason not to support. ~AH1(TCU) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I think this user would make a great admin. Gary King (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support of course. the wub "?!" 11:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - I think this user is perfectly capable - no real problems that suggest I shouldn't support. Lradrama 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support - There is absolutely no reason not to give him or her the tools. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 20:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per nom. Hobartimus (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per nom. --Legionarius (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Zaxem (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Trustable and will be a great help to the community. Harland1 (t/c) 05:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. "Question for the candidate:" Can 72 people (or 1 sockpuppeteer ;) ) be wrong? · AndonicO Engage. 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support He's got my vote. :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I guess I don't support much, but a thorough review of this candidate came back very positive. In addition, answers to questions were quite good. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Yes, you are definitely going to use them appropriately. Cheers, Razorflame 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Great candidate, shows the wisdom and the knowledge needed. Cenarium (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support SexySeaShark 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per nom and everything stated above AVandtalkcontribs 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I thought you were already an admin! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support What? You are not an admin? Time to change that! EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do. Oh, I was just gonna say what EconomicsGuy said above!-- Barkjon  20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support His work looks great! Tiggerjay (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - can see no problems here. Good luck! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    #Support - looks great! Tiggerjay (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Definitely. I have had many positive interactions with Horologium. --Elonka 03:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Yes, experienced and trustworthy. Good luck. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Looks to have a good grasp of policy. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support From what I've seen about the place, understands policy, is rational and extremely unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck! :) Orderinchaos 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Do I even need a reason? RC-0722 247.5/1 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support See nothing to suggest user will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I can see the user is experienced and will not misuse the tools of an admin. YoungWebProgrammer msg 00:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support: Woah, lots of supports, why not pile on ;). Now for my real rationale. Good editor who deserves the tools.</Edit Conflict> Good luck, Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  95. Support - No reasons not to support. An exemplary candidate. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Full Support. For every reason above. Spinach Dip 02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Good responses and record and wide support suggests we have a good new admin here - well done! SatuSuro 04:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
  98. Support, can't see why not. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - yes, I'm generously allowing someone else to get the 100th support. Great user. Neıl ☎ 09:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - with pleasure. --Bhadani (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]

NeutralStill not entirely convinced by that diff, but given the very good answers, and supports by some people I trust, switched to support. [5] - apart from the actual sentiments (which might just be a one-off), this was posted in December. and you have indeed cut back on your Wikipedia involvement, from 2000+ edits in November to less than 300 last month. So I'm not exactly sure why you want the tools now? Black Kite 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the rather extreme spike in November/December was due in part to prioritizing/quality classing/adding/removing items for WikiProject Florida. My edit counts prior to and after that period are roughly congruent. Last month was a "slow" month for me because I was away from home for over two weeks, with only dial-up access for part of that period. My editing will be returning to a higher level than last month, although not at the frenetic pace of November. Horologium (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (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.
Category