Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Laser_brain

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

Final (talk page) (125/0/1); Ended Mon, 11 May 2009 00:14:05 (UTC) -- Closed by Avi (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain (talk · contribs)

Co-nomination by SandyGeorgia. Laser brain has been a solid reviewer, FA writer and positive presence at FAC since he registered his account almost a year and a half ago, quickly achieving a rank among FACs best reviewers (see February and May 2008 stats). He is among the most conscientous, prolific, and thorough reviewers at FAC, has written an FA, and has also helped out on the Signpost Dispatches with an article about MainPage day. He is always willing to tackle and stick with difficult reviews at FAC, and has demonstrated his civility and fair approach many times over. He is the kind of editor who does his homework and learns and applies policy well and fairly. FAC is a good forum for learning about copyright and plagiarism issues, and having another committed and civil admin on board to help deal with those issues, and ongoing FAC business, will benefit Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Karanacs. From my first interactions with Laser brain, I have been impressed with his ability to work well with all types of users. In his opinion, "we need to do our best to support and encourage" those editors committed to improving the encyclopedia, and ignore those who are here for other purposes. This philospophy may be the reason I see him most often at WP:FAC, where he is one of the hardest working reviewers. FAC can be a difficult environment for reviewers, as constructive criticism is not always well received. Regardless of the response his comments receive, Laser is unfailingly civil, encouraging [1], and helpful [2]. He spends a significant amount of his wiki-time copyediting articles that are being prepared for FAC (and at times works on articles that he has already opposed at FAC to bring them up to the FA prose standards). In addition, he has spent considerable effort improving several key articles, including an ongoing collaboration on Frankenstein.

Laser brain does not have a lot of experience with traditional administrative work, although he does revert vandalism and warn vandals. For the tasks he intends to pursue, however, the most important qualities are a CLUE, knowledge of content and image policies, and the ability to interact well with editors in potentially stressful situations. He has those in spades. I'm confident that Laser can learn any other skills he needs to do janitorial tasks, and that he will be a highly effective administrator. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Laser brain (talk) 02:13, 4 May 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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'm interested in helping out at Copyright problems and Non-free content review. Both are usually backlogged, and since both involve potential copyright infringements, they should receive as much administrator attention as possible. They also require reasoned examination of text and images against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, something I am no stranger to due to my extensive experience at WP:FAC. I frequently deal with copyright and plagiarism issues in my professional arena, giving me a solid background to deal with such issues. I will also be able to help with the housekeeping tasks that come up at FAC.

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

A: I believe my contributions to reviewing Featured article candidates are the most important thing I do around here. Each article promoted from that process brings Wikipedia one step closer to becoming a comprehensive, well-written reference. There in the trenches, we collaborate, improve articles, and build consensus on what constitutes our best content. On the content creation side, I have brought musical instrument, a Vital article, a considerable distance from where I found it. I am proud of starting and bringing Elderly Instruments to Featured article status. I am also involved in a collaboration to bring Frankenstein, another important article, up to FA standard.

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: Sure thing. A lot of what I do involves criticizing the work of other users—conflicts and stressful situations are bound to arise. One exchange that sticks in my mind is when a user was raising spectres of cabalism and bad faith at one of his FAC nominations. I engaged him in conversation to point, and then suggested an RfC might be in order. The situation didn't escalate from there, but it demonstrates my path of conflict resolution. Most conflicts can be resolved through "patient conversation" (to quote an administrator I greatly respect), but when that has been exhausted one must use the proper channels rather than resorting to name-calling and vengeful behavior. I am also a consensus-builder; in any dispute, I aim for a practical, consensus-based solution.

Optional question from user:Tempodivalse

4. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an admin, you will inevitably come across a situation where you will need to weigh consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in an AfD, article content disupte, et cetera.

A: Consensus is the general agreement of discussion participants over any given matter. Since no one here wields absolute power, Wikipedia operates on a consensus model for determining how things should occur. Admins make some unilateral decisions (such as whether to speedy delete something) but the policies and guidelines governing those decisions are formed by consensus. Determining consensus is not a numbers game—one must carefully examine the merit and general level of agreement of each argument. Sometimes the waters are too muddied and no consensus exists, wherein a default action is taken.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

5a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I don't monitor nearly enough BLPs to know how we're going on a grand scale. The ones I do watch are closely guarded, so I'd give us an "A" on that account. I've spent a day or two reviewing all of the relevant policy pages as well as ArbCom cases, and I'm confident that our collective head is in the right place. Do no harm. If content is questionable, get it out of there until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it belongs there. We can't be careful enough in this regard.

5b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A:

5c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A:

5d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A:

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A:

• Links for Laser brain: Laser brain (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Laser brain can be found here.

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

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, not all of these links work, like the Edit summary one (Soxred's) looks up the edit summary usage for Requests for adminship. Is this template meant to be used on a user's user page? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click through to the actual RfA page, in this case Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain for the links to work - they don't work when you simply browse through RfAs that are transcluded at the WP:RFA page. Nick (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I never participate in RfAs, but Laser brain is just too good to pass up. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. (edit conflict)Support — Jake Wartenberg 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support From a brief review they are a great editor with lots of positive contributions to the project and I think they would make a valuable administrator. Camw (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Can see no issues. ∗ \ / (⁂) 02:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. A good, hard-working, and conscientious editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. From what I've seen, this user is helpful and civil, and understands Wikipedia policies. No issues that I can see. — TKD::{talk} 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. The candidate is bright and helpful. I see little risk in giving Laser brain the sysop buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. User is here to build an encyclopedia, nicely bold and focused, has perfect edit summary usage, and has broad experience from WP:FAC to a good number of helpful mainspace edits. User without a doubt deserves the mop.--(NGG) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Majorly talk 02:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Two wonderful things, lasers and brains, merging into one entity? It would be disastrous not to. — neuro^(talk) 02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - Absolutely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - All the makings of a good admin. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per above. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked nor he the candidate had any memorable negative interactions with me. One thing, though, I don't know if it's my browser or what, but the text of the userboxes on the candidate's userpage seem cut off of the right side of the screen. Not sure what that is about? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I can't see all the text either, so it's not just you. Useight (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Occurs for me in IE7 (but only sometimes), never in Firefox 3. — TKD::{talk} 04:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Works for me –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Works for me too in Firefox 3 on Linux. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Hmmm, I'm using IE6; guess that explains it. Useight (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Works for me in Safari 3.2 (I never knew we had this template) Valley2city^‽ 06:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, For people using older versions of IE, IE8 doesn't seem to have a problem with. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support A great leader and mediator, just the kind of person who would be a great administrator. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Good contributions, good reviewing, should be a great sysop on wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Oh well someone has to sort out the copyvio/fairuse pileup, good luck. NVO (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Civil, has clue, improves the encyclopedia, solid knowledge of policy. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. no-brainer this decision, plenty qualified and unequivocal net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Someone who is willing to jump into the backlogs has my !vote. Also a good history and knowledge make me confident that Laser brain will use the tools well. Valley2city^‽ 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26.  Works for me, er, Support. Excellent work at FAC. The content review areas always need more editors. Shubinator (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Watched Laser Brain around and like the work, attitude, etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 07:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support without any reservations. Hopefully this doesn't take away too much time from your FAC commentary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support --AWESOME PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - I analyzed the edits of Laser brain, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support No question; love your work.  Chzz  ►  09:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. — R² 10:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Weak Support I would've liked to see a little more work in administrative areas, but you'll do fine. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 10:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support experienced user, has clue, is civil, deserves mop. ϢereSpielChequers 11:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support all of my experiences with this user and the answers to qustions make me beleive Laser brain is eminently mop-worthy Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Wtf Support?! How did I miss this going live? I should have voted while it was inactive... --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. 무지개빛깔 12:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support The couple of times I've seen this editor around, I've been impressed by the laser like brainy comments :-) And, with noms like that, ..... --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, a great candidate.--Berig (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong Support. Been impressed by everything I've seen from this editor for a long time. I have no doubt Laser Brain will be a top notch admin. --JayHenry (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and an excellent array of contributions to this project in multiple capacities. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support as co-nominator. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support good answers to questions. No concerns, tempodivalse [☎] 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Good user, will not abuse tools, no reason to oppose. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Absolutely and unreservedly. LB is civil, sensible, intelligent and a brilliant FAC reviewer. I have learnt a lot form Laser. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support per reasons well articulated above. Эlcobbola _talk 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Good content work. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Skomorokh 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support mainly due to answer to Q1 and work on FAC. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support No issues I see. America69 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support; have seen the editor participate in FAC processes and have been impressed with his advice and his attitude. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Saw this way before it went live. Absolutely the right temperament, definite support from me. Ceranthor 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Impressed by everything I've seen of Laser brain's contributions at WP:FAC, to the point that I've taken to emulating several aspects of his reviewing method. Thorough and articulate, this editor is respected by the community and can be trusted with the tools. Steve ^{T • C} 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - An ideal candidate to handle copyright-related matters, given how often they are discussed at FAC. Laser is easily one of the best FAC reviewers, and I echo previous supporters in saying that I've learned much from Laser's many reviews. I have full trust that the tools would be put to good use. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. WP:AGF I don't know the candidate at all and right now am too lazy to do research, but the nominator, SandyGeorgia's high credibility give me a warranty for the candidate.--Caspian blue 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Looks good. hmwithτ 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support because Sandy told me to... I mean, the candidate is swell. :P But seriously, he would help out a lot as an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Good luck. GlassCobra 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Per two very well written co-nominations(above), consistently positive edits, and the untold hundreds of hours of review, improvement and encouragement this fine author has made. Laser has a demonstrated need for administrative tools. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support per noms. Will make a fine admin. Timmeh! 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Very strong support — I kid you not, I had already thought of Laser Brain as an administrator. Let's give him the mop. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. <generic thought he was an admin bit here>. Strong content work and dedication to the encyclopedia based on personal interactions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Wished I could have given a nomination.  Marlith (Talk)  03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Strong editor, nom from two editors I highly respect, and plans to work in one of the most critical areas of the encyclopedia (dealing copyright issues and non-free content). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Laser Brain zap! appears from my checking to be an extremely capable candidate. He is extremely dedicated to the encyclopedia, and doesn't lose his head.  Works for me, he'll make a good admin. Xclamation point 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Pile on. Keeper | 76 03:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Strong support Wizardman 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Yep Does excellent work. Royalbroil 04:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Nothing but positive interactions with Laser brain... how on earth do you not already have the tools? Resolute 04:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Nothing really to add to what has already been said. Ideal candidate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support per above; in addition, solid answers to questions given. One (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support; excellent and diligent FA reviewer. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Of course. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Synergy 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Strong support Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Strongest support Excellent analytical skills and attention to detail. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Strong support Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Laser is an outstanding reviewer at FAC, and I am confident that his content experience, attention to detail and excellent communication skills will serve him well as an admin. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support No alarms here, highly competent content builder willing to tackle admin backlogs. --GedUK  12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Enormous Support--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Juliancolton/Blink would have been better. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What, haven't you read my essay?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mind-blowing support. I may borrow your expression for other RfA cases ;) --Caspian blue 20:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86. Support, especially per excellent work on FAC and copyright. FlyingToaster 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support – TheLeftorium 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - I honestly thought you already were. Gran² 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Kablammo (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. Kaaveh (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support A sound candidate, it makes sense...Modernist (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - impressive candidate, willing to work in areas where it's much needed (like copyright problems). Good luck. Robofish (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Easy support. No problem. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support excelent contributions, and needed experience with copyright issues. --J^mundo 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Pile-on support, great looking editor from a quick glance, no real need to look further with the 94/0 turnout so far. Matty (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support, how can I not support a candidate named "Laser brain"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
97. Support Admins who are well-versed in FA issues and see the wisdom in supporting positive contributors certainly seems like a win-win situation. -- Banjeboi 12:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support - created FA's/DYKs, lots of edits, good knowledge, fun user page. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. S Dlohcierekim 19:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. Strong candidate. — Σxplicit 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Strong Support. No brainer. ;) Seriously, I see no reason to oppose and every reason to support. No potential abuse as far as I can see. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Go out for the day and miss the chance to be #100, co-nom support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. Nothing but net. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. +S: Oi, why didn't you tell me you were slumming at RfA? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support - gees, I missed this. No reason to think he'd missue the tools, but I have to worry that the ranks of non-admin folks who frequent FAC keeps diminishing! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     You are next on my list, Ealdgyth. ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     It's a long list :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     No. In fact, to quote Malleus (badly) "Hell no." Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

106. Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. I have every reason to believe that this user will be an ideal admin. Firestorm ^Talk 18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Per nom. Dferg (☎) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Strong support. Go you! --candle•wicke 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support - seen the candidate around and no reason to not support; also per Firestorm (talk · contribs). Interesting noms with both FAC delegates. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. Good communicator and content editor. qp10qp (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. DVD 03:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support Has got his priorities in order. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Definitely. An excellent candidate. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. No brainer. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. Superb work at FAC as a skilled reviewer. Tony (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support Trust the nom by SandyGeorgia and excellent candidate with great work in FAC and track is outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. Strong Support no reason not to support - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Please zap my brain with lasers err, I mean support. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support Yup. MelissaC1993 (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support – seems good to me! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 08:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support Kafka Liz (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. Pile-on support Looks good to me, and nobody has opposed yet.--Res2216firestar 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support No problems here. Razorflame 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. No time to check out the candidate but with noms SandyGeorgia and Karanacs, candidate is probably O.K.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:19, 4 May 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.