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

UkPaolo

final (52/1/0) ending 22:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

UkPaolo (talk · contribs) – It is my honor to nominate this excellent editor for adminship. He has been here since May 2005 and has made more than 4000 edits. He always uses edit summaries and he fully understands Wikipedia policies. He often welcomes new users, reverts vandalism, votes for deletion, sorts stubs, wikifies articles, and a lot of other things. He is also a friendly and kind user: he would be a great admin! Mushroom (Talk) 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Mushroom (Talk) 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support Sounds good to me. --D-Day 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, very reasonable contributor in deletion debates. Kusma (討論) 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, good edits, have seen him around doing smart things, couldn't find any bad history. - Bobet 01:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Double-take cliche moment; he should have been an admin months ago! Xoloz 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Moe ε 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Good track record. pschemp | talk 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good luck! gidonb 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Terence Ong 08:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - let's give him his own mop! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Everything looks to be in order here. Essexmutant 10:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Liberatore(T) 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Phædriel ♥tell me
  19. Support brianherman- 22:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support abakharev 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Yes --Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Sure, why not? --TantalumTelluride 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, seems a good editor and a very reasonable and sensible user. Raven4x4x 09:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. UkSupport Proto||type 10:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Of course. Banez 10:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support and delighted to do so. David | Talk 11:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support easy decision.Gator (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support seems a good user. Hiding talk 21:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Gladly. Sango123 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --AySz88^-^ 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Sounds like a great user. --mdmanser 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support A fine editor. Marskell 12:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - our paths haven't crossed for a while, but UkPaolo has always done good work. violet/riga (t) 17:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support looks good --rogerd 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--Jusjih 03:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I like [1] —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 08:49Z
  40. Support.--Ugur Basak 12:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Mihai -talk 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support NaconKantari e|t||c|m 02:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. — FireFox • T • 10:33, 17 February 2006
  44. Support. --Ashenai 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Looks good. Krashlandon (e) 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Mjal 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Would make a great administrator. — TheKMantalk 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Found nothing to really object to in his history, only good contribs. Give him a mop and bucket.--Dakota ~ ° 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: --Bhadani 07:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: another who thought UkPaolo was already an admin. -- Samir ∙ TC 07:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Überstrong support: the user seems like a responsible Wikipedian. ComputerJoe 12:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. No reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I nominated you for adminship for an act of kindness. You reject it, saying it is bad faith, which it is clearly not. Then you automatically accept User:Mushroom's nomination? Why? You are not worthy of being an admin! --Bling-chav 21:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To the closing bureaucrat: this user (meaning Bling-chav, not UkPaolo) has performed many questionable RfA-related edits. I don't think this oppose vote had a valid reason, but of course, I won't strike out the vote myself. --Deathphoenix 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think UkPaolo gave a good explanation to why he chose not to accept Bling-chav's nomination, here. — TheKMantalk 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a note to clarify who I meant in my comment above. :-) --Deathphoenix 21:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand adminship! If you're an admin, you get special privelages like blocking, unblocking, protecting, deleting, undeleting, expelling, etc. etc. You have to be really good, kind and helpful and have a lot of edits to be an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bling-chav (talk • contribs)
    Bling-chav has now been blocked for vandalism (and trolling). -- Curps 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. As Mushroom said in my nomination, in addition to creating and wikifying articles I currently also help stub sorting, welcoming new users, participating in AfD discussions, and reverting vandalism, and I will continue to do these things regardless of whether this request for adminship is successful. If I do become an administrator I would like to help out with sysop chores, in particular closing AfD discussions where a consensus has been made, and looking at articles listed at requested moves which are awaiting attention. I would also use the tools to carry out blocks, if appropriate, in the fight against vandalism. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Of the contributions I have made to Wikipedia, the majority have been in wikifying existing articles, and helping with other chores, rather than creating a vast number of new articles from scratch. Of these such articles I am probably most proud of the changes I have made to the article on Basingstoke which I heavily re-wrote as a relatively new user, and have since tried to keep vandal-free. I also improved the content of Fairytale of New York (song), adding a references section, and have continued to help the cleanup of the MySpace article (through edits such as this).
Of new articles which I have created, I feel the article on the French submarine Nautile represents my best contribution, along with an article on British cinema chain Ster Century, and Italian village Barga (which has recently been expanded by another user). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have never experienced a particularly high level of stress in my time editing Wikipedia, mainly since I try not to let other people's annoyances affect me too much! The biggest annoyances which come to mind are probably those of AfD discussions in which I have participated, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zillions of Games and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Steadman. In these discussions I have been irritated by the actions of other users, but tried to make my views appropriately in the AfD discussion.
In the future I will continue to ensure that I think through the consequences of any actions which I take, and ensure that discussion takes place and a consensus reached before taking actions which may prove controversial. I would hope that by doing this, and taking the time to consider the viewpoint of other Wikipedians, I will be largely able to avoid future conflicts. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above 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