Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2over0 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2over0

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

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final: (94/0/0); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2over0 (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present 2over0, formerly User:Eldereft, for your consideration. 2/0 has been editing actively for almost 2 years, and has made a little over 8,000 edits. He's consistently impressed me (and, I think, many others) with his thoughtfulness, maturity, and cluefulness. 2/0 has been active on a number of challenging and controversial articles, where he's consistently been a voice of reason and moderation, earning accolades from editors of all persuasions (see also [1], this brief exchange, and this thread for representative examples where he's found common ground, or at least mutual respect, with editors despite differing views on content).

Why do I think 2/0 would be a good admin?

• He's contributed quality content, particularly to our science articles: he has a good focus on the project's ultimate goal of creating serious, respectable reference material, and a good feel for the challenges faced by content editors.
• When conflict has arisen, he's handled it admirably: we desperately need more admins with a demonstrated track record of maturity and good conflict-resolution skills.
• He follows through on "keep" !votes at AfD by actually improving the article in question, indicating that he takes participation in these discussions seriously.

Overall, 2/0 has a good balance of content and project-related contributions, he's demonstrated maturity and level-headedness in the trenches of some of our most controversial articles, and he's an active, experienced, and clueful Wikipedian. I hope you'll agree with me that Wikipedia will benefit by giving him a few additional tools to help out around here. MastCell ^Talk 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept your nomination to join the thin geeky line. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. In what administrative work do you intend to take part?

A: Working through New admin school and the Administrators' reading list for starters, obviously. I devote a fairly significant portion of my time to this project, and would like to see it succeed in the long term; I see cleaning out areas of Category:Administrative backlog and Category:Wikipedia requests related to admins such as AN3, RFPP, AIV, {{editprotected}}, &c. as one way to help ensure that it does. Special:Unwatchedpages also needs more attention, pretty much by definition. I am not sure if it is just that I have been noticing such things since making a bid for the mop'n'bucket has been on my mind, but lately it seems that there have been more frequent posts to AN reporting backlogs. I have closed several non-controversial AfD discussions, and I think I have a workable understanding of consensus-building, parsing policy-based arguments, and ignoring disruptive sockpuppets. I take a conservative view of speedy deletions, both as is due a low-oversight occupation and because nothing drives away a constructive first-timer like coming back from dinner to find that their work has disappeared.

Vandal control and maintenance of neutrality: I never bothered to ask for rollback, but I have been using Twinkle with no complaints since February 2008. WikEd and Ale_jrb's userhist script, which isolates an editor's contribution history to a particular article, help on articles where the recent history is clogged by multiple partial reversions of different vandals or edit warriors interleaved with incontrovertibly productive additions to or rearrangements of an article. I am also sporadically active at WP:3O, which has given me practice at recognizing good-content/bad-conduct editors, bad-content/good-conduct editors, and other complex cases. While I would be honor-bound to protect The Wrong Version^TM, I would not want to be the instrument by which one POV-warrior wins against another; if there is a good-faith dispute, that should be addressed as well when closing a noticeboard report.

Naturally, as someone whose publication record is so closely tied to his livelihood, I tend to take a fairly strict stance when the issue of proper attribution is broached. Offhand, I would say I have stumbled across fewer than five hands of egregious violations in my years here. The easy cases are the ones where it simply does not occur to an editor that copying text from one article to another breaks the chain of attribution and thus our license. I have yet to have the get attribution into the history and politely but firmly explain the problem method blow up in my face. For more complex incidents, though, (semi) page protection and blocks of an appropriate duration would come in handy. This is not an area where I plan to be involved in the near term while I am still chafing at the traces, but it is important to the long-term viability of the project.

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

A: I have created a few articles, for instance GRB 080913 and Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (which went to DYK). Potassium-argon dating and Unit vector I have substantially rewritten. I help maintain and occasionally improve a number of our physics and other science and maths articles. Beyond simple vandalism, misconceptions and incorrect values or units get added fairly regularly.

Obviously I neither could nor would want to claim sole or even necessarily primary responsibility for any of these, but a few situations to which I am proud to have contributed include the relative stability of late experienced by Alternative medicine, Homeopathy, and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Despite its low reader traffic, the last is probably the best example - it is amazing how adding and scrupulously summarizing scores of sources can calm a contentious article.

The recent event which made me happiest, though, was to have an offline friend explain a recent development in physics to me based primarily on text I had written scant few hours earlier. Obviously there is some thrill at the awesome responsibility of speaking to the world, but more importantly we managed to impart to a non-technical individual sufficient understanding of bleeding edge physics to convey an essentially accurate explanation in a social situation. Sharing the joy at how gosh-darned cool the universe can be is just bonus.

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: Yes. While fringe science / pseudoscience / alternative medicine, the demesne in which most of my edits lie, is not quite up to Israel/Palestine level of disruption, I think I have more experience than most editors at dealing with intermittantly explosive situations.

User talk:2over0/Archive 2#kardashev scale documents probably the time I most got carried away with a dispute. Certainly it is the only time I have been seriously threatened with a block (and arguably should have received one). The full history is still available in the article archive, its talk, and our two talkpages, but in short I reverted a blatantly wrong edit from a well-intentioned but confused editor. It was a simple problem in dimensional analysis, and once a third editor dropped by a few hours later with the complete explanation all at once instead of piecemeal in a revert war, the matter was settled. Discussion is both cheaper on the servers and emotionally easier on those involved; also, there is no WP:TRUTH exception at WP:EW.

There has to date that I recall been exactly one AN/I thread started treating my edits. An editor requested a third opinion on a discussion involving more than two editors, I removed the request from the list per the limited remit of that board, and drama ensued. I can pontificate at length on the matter if anyone would like to request additional detail or clarification.

Sense About Science has two more recent incidents that better exemplify my current problem solving style. In the first, back in March, an editor added what seemed to me sourced but unbalanced commentary; the source was basically reliable, but not, in my estimation, of sufficient quality and prominence to warrant inclusion of the point. In lieu of edit warring discussion by edit summary, I found a better source for that point and added a Reception section to maintain the balance of the article. Crisis averted. The second incident, ending back in August, was a bit more protracted. My part in it began with parsing on the talkpage a significant edit to isolate points of contention, and continued with insistence that we accurately reflect the full spectrum of sources, reminders to stay on-topic and follow the talk page guidelines, and, finally, a report to AIV for edit warring. Obviously The Tools would be unavailable to me in any similar future situation, but this incident does serve to demonstrate my general philosophy that they should be used to facilitate productive discussion rather than "solve" disputes.

I ramble on at length on related issues with a few examples here. Actual behavior in the face of conflict I think is more meaningful for the question at hand, but you might find it useful for understanding my thought processes and assessing the likelihood that I will be able to deal with unforeseen situations. There is a #Summary section at the bottom if you would like the short version.

Additional optional questions from 2over0

4. Did you ever edit Wikipedia prior to registering your present account? Would you be willing to disclose publicly or to key trusted editors any past, current, and future accounts?

A: Before registering, I applied miscellaneous minor fixes (typos, grammar, glaring omissions, etc.) to articles as I ran across them. I finally bothered to register an account in August 2005, but I have only really been editing in earnest since around January 2008. As MastCell notes above, I originally contributed as Eldereft before changing to my current moniker this past April. My only significant IP edits since registering were during a vacation to Cedar Key, and are described here. I have created an alternate account, User:2over0_public, for use in any similar future situations. I have neither registered nor edited from any other account. I hereby affirm that any future account will also be declared publicly or privately and that I will abide by the letter and spirit of WP:SOCK.

Additional optional question from Ray

5. You mentioned above that you do a lot of work in pseudoscience topics. Can you give us an idea of how you think Wikipedia should treat such issues, and how do you see yourself using admin tools with respect to discussions in this area?

A: Treatment of pseudoscience, like all topics, should be guided by independent reliable sources, with weighting in keeping with their differential reliability. Given our mission to inform readers without misleading them and the frequency of WP:ADVOCACY edits in the area, independence of sourcing is especially important. Not only should they be used to frame the article in such a way as to be accessible to the average reader, but the level of detail and focus expressed should also follow from the independent sources. Ideally, it would be possible to write an article using nothing but cleanly independent sources, but like most rules there are occasional excetions. For instance, if the independent sources treat only the social impact of an idea, self-published material may be used to provide context for that impact.

A more interesting case is acupuncture, which is simultaneously: a traditional medicine, which should be treated as a cultural anthropology article; subject of a large body of research, which is governed by WP:MEDRS; and a pseudoscience involving the manipulation of the body's vital energy. The current article shows signs of having been penned by a committee, but does a decent job at decoupling the evidence basis from the pseudoscientific explanation from the history and cultural significance of the practice.

As for potential future administrative actions in the area, they would be severely circumscribed by WP:UNINVOLVED. The articles actively edited by myself or an editor about whom I have formed an opinion covers, I suspect, most of Category:Pseudoscience and its proper subcategories. I suppose there exists the possibility of emergency protection in case of an IP-hopping grossly BLP-violating vandal on a high-visibility article, but honestly it would probably take more time for me to peruse the relevant policies and satisfy myself that the exception might be warranted than it would take for someone else to act on an RFPP

Additional optional questions from A Stop at Willoughby

6. Are there restrictions on the kinds of Wikipedia-related essays that users may write in the project namespace? Are there any grounds on which you would delete such an essay? Are there any grounds on which you would userfy such an essay?

A:Yes, though fairly wide latitude is traditionally granted regarding projectspace content that is related to the project or the community (Category:Wikipedia humor is always fun). The Biographies of living persons policy applies everywhere, and violations are always subject to reversion, blanking, and deletion. I hasten to stress that BLP is a powerful tool with potential chilling effects, and should not be used in marginal cases; the removal of the otherwise near-universal easy reversal option puts an additional onus to participate in discussion on the citing editor.

Less dramatically, an attack page or enemies list may be taken to MfD from projectspace or userspace. Interpretations differ on distinguishing disallowed disparaging content from historical comment or active preparations for an RfC or ArbCom case.

Also disallowed from WPspace is any essay directly contradictory to a policy (excepting Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you and the like edit: or clarifying opinions such as WP:NOTOR). If there is a clear primary author, userfication (with a notice analogous to {{Userpage}}) might be an option. Citing such an essay as though it were policy would be disruptive, especially under the guise of advising new editors.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

7. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A: Very carefully, and most likely as no consensus, with an eye to relisting iff there seem to be unaddressed points. Not easily determined is, of course, not the same as unclear - if a closer reading of the debate than whatever bar "I" initially used in this example reveals that the arguments favoring one position are not based in policy, that would make the closing decision easy. I made a related post here a few weeks back discussing what I think it means for consensus to be "obvious" and how an AfD closer should summarize the debate. I am currently ambivalent regarding the proposal to default no consensus BLPs to delete (although I am firmly against any death during a contentious debate, as it would needlessly inflame the situation). Current policy does not support it, so I will be guided by that.

If someone making a reasonable claim to be the subject of the article weighs in, their opinions would be considered. A credible assertion that they do not wish to be a public figure would incline me towards delete (I am assuming that the lack of consensus indicates that the sourcing is pretty marginal).

8. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A: I approve of the spirit of the policy, and perusing it just now the wording and explicit scope seem pretty much fine. I particularly like that there is a link to #Dealing with articles about yourself at the top. #Dealing with edits by the subject of the article looks like it should have a reference to WP:DOLT unless talkpage consensus has rejected it for some reason.

Given my editsphere, most of the BLP issues I recall offhand have dealt with either excessive disparagement or coatracking, mostly with cherry-picked sources. Despite vague but hysterical anecdotal reports, Dr. West's serum has never verifiably revivified anyone under controlled conditions or in the peer reviewed literature, leading many^[who?] to describe him as an untalented charlatan preying on the imaginations of the gullible. This sentence, in addition to being needlessly convoluted, should be pared and split into simple, direct, verified statements, and any language such as charlatan be directly attributed to a source of impeccable provenance undeniable prominence. Likewise, an extensive discourse on the efficacy of the reagent as discussed in the peer reviewed literature belongs in the relevant medical article, not Herbert West–Reanimator. There is a continual tension between giving a self-sourced recounting of a person's claims and detailing the context for these claims as part of a wider discourse. Here is a link to some cleanup I did at Dan Olmsted a few weeks back. I removed a blog source and a study related to his writings but not actually directly related to him; I removed the term thiomersal containing vaccine, as it is not in general currency; and I replaced a misleading link to Ethylmercury with one to Thiomersal controversy, which discusses the point more directly. It is not necessary to recapitulate at that article why the vaccination-causes-autism hypothesis is flawed,^[2] only to ensure that readers are not misled.

I have not been involved in the numerous discussions of flagged revisions, but favor them in general, especially for BLP articles. The harm that can be instigated by our articles propagates outwards through citations, mirrors, and search engine caches, and does not end just because someone catches a defamatory sentence here.

The relative sparsity of the BLPLOG indicates that the policy is probably powerful enough to deal effectively with most BLP-related disruption. As I mention above, care is necessary when invoking the policy to avoid chilling effects.

I have done very little work with BLPs. Partly this is exercise of the precautionary principle - I would prefer to say nothing than to add material based on a source which is later discredited. Mostly, though, I just tend to be more interested in things than in people. I created Susan Swedo, but of my top 100 most-edited articles, I count two articles on non-living persons and two BLPs. Obviously there are BLP considerations in many of the remaining articles as well.

Additional optional questions from Lambanog

9. There is an advocate who is promoting or out to prove a particular point of view (this is explicitly stated) and creates an article for that purpose. It is a legitimate point-of-view and can be verified. However, the article omits a critical opposing viewpoint. Another editor recognizes this and believing the opposing viewpoint takes issue. The creator advocate makes edits so that the article while not omitting the critical opposing viewpoint still glosses over it and portrays it in such a way as to diminish its importance. Rather than get into a time consuming edit war involving content that may also end up lending credence to the campaign of the article creator, the opposing editor instead decides to heavily tag the article with specific NPOV related templates and gives reasons on the talk page. Questions: Is this proper? How long should the NPOV tags be allowed to stand? Should the onus be on the article creator to balance the article or the editor raising issues to directly make edits? In general how should one-sided advocates be dealt with? In your view are current Wikipedia guidelines sufficient in addressing this issue? [2 minor edits made by Lambanog for clarification]

A: Short version: Yes(ish). Indefinitely (but). Nobody (but). Outside input and potentially topic banning. Yes.

This question cuts to the heart of two of the weaknesses of an all-volunteer encyclopedia: nobody must do anything even when they should, and apparent consensus can be attained by driving away or outlasting less committed voices. The creator is displaying definite signs of article ownership, but in the situation outlined there is only the assessment of one editor that the version glossing criticism is insufficient. Per WP:DEADLINE, a small number of appropriately targeted and explained tags should remain until the issue is resolved. In general, the most general tags should be favored initially, being replaced with more specific tags as the article is improved. For instance, {{unreferenced}} and {{unreferenced-section}} should not be used on the same article; similarly, {{NPOV}} should take preference over {{cleanup-reorganize}}, as the latter issue may be resolved in the process of fixing the more pressing issue.

This may be a good candidate for WP:Third opinion, especially if independent high-quality sources which neither lionize nor disparage the topic can be found and the article written solely or primarily using those. Single-purpose agenda-driven accounts are difficult to sway using arguments of site policy or guidelines such as WP:COI (see e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology). The editors should at this point seek and listen to outside input at NPOV/N, FT/N, or an appropriate WikiProject. If after a reasonable period of time this does not result in article improvements sufficient to remove the tags or in a consensus that the glossed version sufficiently reflects the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources, an article or user Request for comment should be started. I recently participated at a community topic ban discussion initiated to deal with disruptive editing from an editor who felt that a particular viewpoint was not being treated as valid. The first weakness is counterbalanced by Wikipedia's greatest strength - a great many reasonable but disinterested editors have more voice than a single editor who is highly invested in the topic of an article.

The second problem is more difficult; the essay Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing outlines some of the problems encountered with and damage caused by editors who are willing to work within the letter of site policies but are not fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia, or are quality contributors in some areas but disruptive in others. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley resulted in part from disruption on talkpages and the drain on volunteer time when excessive verbiage and willingness to outlast and erode the patience of less devoted editors interfere with article improvement. And yes I recognize the irony inherent in the length of this answer; in my defense, the topic at hand is one on which I am uniquely qualified to expound.

In my view, the present policies and guidelines of Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, the Talk page guidelines, and related ancillary pages are sufficient to deal with advocacy-only accounts without resorting to summary banning or anything like that. The problem, of course, is that they are enforced through editor time and effort, which are limited resources. This is why it is important to spread out the load before editor burn-out begins. For the most part, these situations can be dealt with without administrator intervention. The extra buttons should not be used by any participant in such a discussion, and only come into play to limit disruption or to enforce community consensus.

• Links for 2over0: 2over0 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for 2over0 can be found here.
• No jokes about dividing by zero yet? How disappointing. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Worry not, I got it here and here after I made the switch. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)≈[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/2over0 before commenting.

• Editing stats posted to talk page. JamieS93 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Look this is ridiculous. Somebody has to oppose - or is Eldereft the only Wikipedian in living memory that everybody respects? I'd do it myself for the sake of democracy but I've already supported.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said I respect him (for the record, I do). Maybe there is some kind of exception being thrown if you try to oppose an undefined concept, and mediawiki can't handle it. Verbal chat 12:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It is entirely possible that nobody will oppose.   pablo_hablo. 12:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed entirely possible. In the last month the following have had unanimous support: Arbitrarily0 (59/0/0) and Explicit (73/0/0) - with Bellhalla having no opposes, just one neutral: Bellhalla (117/0/1) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. As nominator. Good luck! :) MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Work in the archives at Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience is just outstanding (search under both usernames). - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Very strong support. Goes the extra mile (1.6km) to solve a problem without compromising the goals of the project. Verbal chat 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. OMCV (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I trust MastCell's instincts.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong support - Same as Tznkai, I trust the nominator completely. Initial look at contributions shows impressive work, and I find no reason to believe this user will be anything but a net positive. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. And another one of my watchlisted redlinks finally goes blue. Very good work in collaboration, solid communication skills, and a willingness to learn and grow from experience. Risker (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm not personally familiar with this user, but their answers were amazingly thorough, which caught my attention. One of the best candidates we've had in a while, a very thoughtful editor with fantastic work and communication abilities; 2⁄0 has my strong support. MastCell's endorsement only furthers my confidence. JamieS93 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Seems like an excellent candidate. Very impressed in particular by the answer to question three. NW (Talk) 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Complete confidence. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Absolutely. Nice contribs, knows his way around here; great answers. A8UDI 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Aye - I like the cut of his jib. Crafty (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support While we have at times held differing opinions, and there have been times that I wished NaN would have stepped in to defuse a situation, I trust that 2/0 will wield the mop with care and diligence. Best of luck :) I do hope that in the future you will take the time to respond to direct questions regarding why you removed material without partaking in the discussion on the talk page. Unomi (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support While I have never even heard of this user before, I see nothing to worry me in their contributions and their answers to the questions are very good as well. Regards SoWhy 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support/Comment Handles contentious discussions with maturity and intelligence, and edits show a vigorous interest in the quality of the project. Now my comment. I trust 2/0 with the tools. Do I trust the rest of WP editors to write good content in his absence, after he has used the tools in a contentious area? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Auntie E. 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Eldereft.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I didn't know who "2over0" was until I saw MastCell call him "2/0" then I instantly recognized him as a person I've run into a few places (ANI and I believe some homeopathy-related article or another), and he's always showing great reasoning skills. Contributions seem very solid and the answers given are quite thoughtful. -- Atama頭 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - I've had no dealings with this user in the past, but I cannot find anything wrong with them. Good answers to questions. Very good answers. Won't abuse tools, so has my trust, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support A pleasure to work with. II | (t - c) 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Surely you're doing something right here since you are here and have this many supports. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support looks all very good and we need more admins with a solid science background SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Skinwalker (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Aye - no problems here at all. Black Kite 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Good, level-headed user. Should be a good admin. Cardamon (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Sensible, helpful and well-informed. Despite these handicaps I think he may have a chance at passing RfA. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support looks good. Dlohcierekim 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. I believe you're one of the few who I've clicked on expecting them to be a tenured admin, but saw they weren't, and nearly ran around like a headless chicken. ceranthor 01:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Fine candidate indeed! Smithers (Talk) 01:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strong Support - has my full trust. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^Talk 02:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong Support: Everything needed to be an excellent administrator.--Twilight Helryx 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong support In a recent encounter, I found 2over0 to have solid policy knowledge. Now that he's seeking adminship, I'm not seeing anything to change that impression. The candidate has respectable article work in a tough subject area to deal in, which merits further respect. Disputes with other editors have generally shown 2over0 to be calm, collected, and reasonable. It's good to see an admin candidate willing to work in the perpetual admin backlog and not just at AIV, CSD, etc. (though there's nothing wrong with that). I also think 2over0 will be a great addition to the admins at WP:ANEW. All these things combined, plus an absence of any reason to oppose, leads me to support strongly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. I saw the candidate in action as a true wikipedian, protecting its articles from vandals, SPAM and hypes (not only reverting, but researching the subject and cleaning up). To add a note - vandalism has escalated these weeks. I don't know about others, but I'm getting overloaded at times with the routine (warning, Whois, blocks, ..) and believe an extra admin would be of much help. Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Keep. WTF? Eldereft has never been an admin? He didn't look down on years of Wikipedia experience when I joined the project? In my mind he has always been an admin and I prefer him to stay one. From what I have seen of him in the pseudoscience area, I believe he is one of the few highly professional Blue Helmets who act like scientists, not like believers in science or in pseudoscience, in this war zone. Hans Adler 07:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Per nom and his answers. Sole Soul (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strong support This is an editor we can trust. S/he can go to a disagreement and put the fires out. I know this is a good candidate for administrator. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Yep. @Kate (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Good contributions and sensible answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Samir 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Very sensible answers to questions. Resolved my wariness about editors who admit to much experience in some of our nastiest and most controversial topics. Ray^Talk 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support No complaints here. Good luck! GlassCobra 15:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Warrah (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. I support this excellent candidate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Net positive. Nothing worries me, in fact, it does the opposite. Everything seems in order. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Seems to be thoughtful and I trust him. Gigs (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Yes   pablo_hablo. 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. I cannot think of a reason not to support. 2/0 seems a very sensible, intelligent editor with a sound understanding of the key policies. Good luck. HJMitchell You rang? 20:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Good luck, I'm sure you'll do well. ϢereSpielChequers 22:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support: Sensible editor, good luck. South Bay (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Level-headed, well-versed in policy, fair-minded. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support No concerns, seems level headed and has made many quality additions to the wiki, will make a good admin. RP459 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support per sensible answers to difficult questions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Answered my questions to my satisfaction. Only concern I had was that the candidate was a perfectionist and expected everyone else to be one. Ability to acknowledge other ways of doing things dispels that concern. Strong candidate. Lambanog (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Seems like a great candidate! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - per User:Airplaneman/RFA. 2over0 is a strong candidate and I'm happy to support. Airplaneman ^talk 05:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support per nom--NotedGrant Talk 09:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - Good answers. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, 2over0. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Yes, why the hell not. :) AtheWeatherman 17:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Very thoughtful answers to questions, and I'm happy to support a scientist who is skillful at handling editors with POVs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - seems fully qualified to be an administrator. Robofish (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Can never have enough of these kind of admins. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Thoughtful responses to questions. Looks great to me. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support, convinced by MastCell's nomination that the user will be a net positive as an admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support, Seems like a great candidate! Sole Flounder (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support The candidate seems level-headed, with good answers to the questions put to them. I see no reason to suppose that this candidate would not be as level-headed with the mop as they have been already without it. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Answers to questions and contributions show a level headed approach. net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support definitely a net positive to the project. Good luck! West one girl (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support- Very clear and concise answers that seem to reflect the nature of his work well. Mkdw^talk 22:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Shii (tock) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Sure!-Per nom. Deo Volente and Herzlichen Glueckwunsch, 2over0!----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support well im sure the 74 editors before me have it down.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Good answers above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - looks good to me.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Level-headed, some good experience in dealing with controversial areas, and generally seems ready. Fences&Windows 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Secret ^account 03:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Best of Luck. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Great editor with good admin potential. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support A positive contributor to the project. Also, answers to the first three questions. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Easily meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Sure Good Luck --Neozoon 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support An excellent editor and asset to the project. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Strong Support: An ideal candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support if Mastcell says he's okay then I guess he's okay... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support BrianY (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Looks like a very good admin to be.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Seems like a good choice...Modernist (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support The thing that should not be 15:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Good answers and edit history. Happy to pile on in favor here at the end. Jusdafax 16:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. iMatthew ^talk at 17:52, 26 November 2009 (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.