Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acalamari 2

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


Acalamari

edit

Final (104/1/1); Ended 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Acalamari (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen of Wikipedia, I present to you for consideration for admin status Acalamari. Acalamari has been a Wikipedia editor since October 2006, and in the eight months that he has been with the project he has amassed, for those to whom edit count is important, 13,343 edits. These include 7,257 edits to mainspace, 1.843 to wikipedia and 109 to wiki talk. He has also registered significant contributions within the areas of templates and of images, and indeed in essentially every nook and cranny of the project.

This is his second WP:RfA. (Wiki-gnomes may locate an aborted one a few days ago, which was terminated because I had already promised to nominate). The first one did not fail, but did not achieve consensus. I did not !vote at that time, partly because my own RfA was running simultaneously, but I became aware of this editor at that time. I have been seriously impressed by the way that he has developed and matured as an editor over the three months since his last RfA, and I believe that this improvement is manifested in the edits which he has produced over this period.

His edits are open to your inspection. I feel that they now show a level of knowledge of policy, a level of self-discipline and a level of maturity which more than justify the award to him of the mop and bucket. Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this generous nomination from Anthony.bradbury, and thank him for taking the time to do this. Acalamari 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: AIV is one of the places that I plan to do work at. I also would like to do work at WP:RFPP, WP:CSD, and Category: Requests for unblock, Category: Requests for unblock-auto and Category: Temporary Wikipedian userpages.
I will explain my reasons for wanting to work in these places: AIV can get backlogged quickly, and there have been times where I have reported a vandal to there, the page is filled with reported vandals, and no administrators have been around for as long as half an hour. It will be a good thing to help clear that backlog instead of have to wait for someone else to do it. CSD, on the other hand, is backlogged most of the time, and administrators are always needed there.
I mentioned in my last RfA that I’d like to do work at RFPP because I am interested in page protection. That still holds true now. With two of the categories I mentioned, I will keep an eye on Category: Requests for unblock and Category: Requests for unblock-auto because, as I mentioned last time, I have been auto-blocked before (not for a long time, fortunately), and it’s because of auto-blocks that I am interested in keeping an eye on those categories.
Finally, the Category: Temporary Wikipedian userpages is a category which is filled with either the user pages or talk pages of indefinitely blocked users; and those pages need deleting. I am interested in working in this category because it too, gets backlogged, and from what I’ve seen of the category, it needs more administrative attention. I will delete pages listed in that category after the accepted amount of time has passed since a user was listed in there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don’t believe I have an individual or group of “best” contributions, but that’s just me. I am most pleased with my work to pages such as Fergie (singer), Pussycat Dolls, Christina Aguilera, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, Aly & AJ, and Kelly Clarkson. I have done a mixture of rewording the some of content of those articles, formatting them, and reverting vandalism. I’ve done more than 300 edits alone to Fergie (singer).
I’ve also done a lot of work on Nicky Hilton, Haylie Duff, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E), Shakira, List of Starfleet ship classes, Alyson Michalka, Mandy Moore and Raptor: Call of the Shadows. With Mandy Moore, however, most of my edits to that page have been reverts. The others, on the other hand, I have helped reword and improve the existing content.
Pages that aren’t on the “Wannabe Kate” list that I’ve worked quite a bit on from time to time include Amanda Michalka, Carrie Underwood, Diana DeGarmo, CeCe Peniston, Rihanna, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Katharine McPhee, and also articles relating to the music of some of the songstresses I mentioned above. I am currently going through all the articles in Category: American female singers to see if I can help improve the pages listed there, and when I’m done with that category, I plan to go through more categories about female singers.
I've edited templates, mainly musician templates. I have created the Vanessa Anne Hudgens, Ashley Tisdale, Brooke Hogan, Trina, Missy Higgins, and Laura Branigan templates, and those templates are used in their articles. I've also done a lot of work on other templates, such as Fergie, Rihanna, Christina Aguilera, Beyoncé Knowles, Nicole Scherzinger, The Pussycat Dolls, Danity Kane, Keyshia Cole, and Kelly Clarkson to name a few.
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: In the last three months, I have been involved in two conflicts:
The first has been with a user called JJH1992. This user has changed music and band infoboxes, mainly to do with the Pussycat Dolls and Danity Kane, to a non-standard style without discussion. Despite being asked by users such as ShadowHalo and myself to talk (and after blocks from Mel Etitis and Adam Cuerden), the user continued to change infoboxes and leave uncivil edit summaries. At one point, JJH1992 was reverting Mel Etitis’ edits to Pussycat Dolls, and I initiated a discussion on the talk page to get them to discuss. They did initially, but unfortunately, JJH1992 began edit warring again. I gave the user links to the pages he should read, but sadly, he didn’t pay any attention to them. He is currently blocked for a month by Adam Cuerden. I hope to try to talk to JJH1992 again when he comes off his block to prevent him from getting into more revert wars over infoboxes. He’s been blocked 6 times (7, but that block was undone to extend the block) for that, and I want to stop him from getting an indefinite block, as he has actually done a lot of good work.
The other conflict (it wasn't a conflict; it's actually a case of silly sockpuppetry) has been going on since an hour or so after my previous RfA closed. While I was responding to users who were talking about the RfA, I edit conflicted on my own talk page with a user called Owner of Boats, who asked me why I revert vandalism on Natalie Erin’s user page. I responded to the user, and found out they were actually a vandal who Chrislk02 had blocked. A few days later, Natalie Erin and I started getting trolled by blatant sockpuppets. This carried on for a while, stopped, and then returned about the time Phaedriel came back, and the trolling spread to her. As I said, this isn’t really a conflict, and it wasn't stressful, as I'm no longer offended by insults or personal attacks; but this is a sockpuppet event notable enough for mentioning here.
Optional Question from Black Harry
4 Why do you think your last RFA failed? What if, if anything, did you learn from it? And why do you now think you're ready to be an administrator?
A I believe it failed for pretty much most of the reasons the opposition listed. The two biggest concerns, in my opinion, were me being incapable at the time of taking criticism and personal attacks (with the blog incidents and user page vandalism); and I had a tendency to overreact to small problems (such as trolls), and turn minor situations, as one member of the opposition said, "into scandals". Those issues had to be addressed; for thin-skinnedness and overreaction are not good traits for an administrator to have. Another issue was usernames. As you can see from "Wannabe Kate", I have 267 edits to WP:RFCN. I used to have a habit or patrolling the list of new users each day, and I didn't understand the username policy completely, and reported borderline and inoffensive usernames to that page. I didn't bother to discuss a user's name, and instead, just brought them to RFCN without even notifying them. There was concern at the last RfA that I would block users with borderline usersnames or users who had inoffensive usernames, and/or concerns I would forget the username policy.
I believe I am no longer thin-skinnned. I have been called a variety of names since three months ago, and those insults never bothered me. I don't overreact to silly situations anymore, as I didn't go crazy when I was trolled and vandalized. I learned to accept that I'll get verbally whacked by people who object to me reverting their vandalism or tagging a page of they created for speedy deletion.
As for why I think I'm ready now, I believe I have addressed the concerns listed. I understand policy now more than I did back then (especially the policies the opposition mentioned). However, I accept that however ready I may feel to become an administrator, in the end, it is not me who determines if I a should be a sysop or not.
If I've left anything out, please tell me and I will gladly address you. Acalamari 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from PrestonH (talk · contribs)
5. What is your view on open proxies? Should they be blocked indefinitely? Why do you think the policy "no open proxies" is important?
My view: they are used to keep the people who use them untrackable when they use the Internet. I understand that some people use them to remain private on the Internet while others use them to be disruptive online.
The current version of No open proxies, as of 12:26, 22 June 2007, says that open proxies should be blocked indefinitely, and currently, there appears to be no consensus established on whether to change that or not. I will follow the current policy because that's what is on that page. Unless the policy changes, I should follow the current version instead of my own, or anybody else's, view on open proxies.
The policy is important because open proxies, more often than not, are used abusively, and not just on Wikipedia either. A sockpuppeteer could use an open proxy to create multiple accounts, and begin to vandalize pages, attack Wikipedians with personal information, etc, and remain undetected. Blocking the open proxy prevents that from happening.
As I said, there appears to be no current consensus to change the policy. My concern is that this RfA may turn into an open proxy debate, even though I do not use, and do not want to use, an open proxy. Acalamari 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from DarkFalls
6. What is your opinion on the ignore all rules policy, and in what circumstances would you invoke it/not invoke it?
IAR is an interesting policy, and when it's used correctly, it helps the project greatly. In all fairness, I hadn't heard about it until it was commonly getting asked on RfA's during April. I was unsure of it at first, but I've come to understand it more. Before ignoring a rule, I believe that it's best to properly know the situation where you believe ignoring a rule is necessary.
As for invoking it, I believe a good example of invoking it would be in situation where, say, two editors were engaged in a revert war, and both had violated WP:3RR. I would post a message on both users talk pages, asking them to discuss instead of revert war. If they would be willing to discuss and stop reverting each other, I would ignore 3RR for them both. The reason I would ignore that policy for them is because common sense tells me that if they were both blocked, they would be unable to discuss their edits, and it's possible they could begin warring again after coming off the blocks; but if they were given a chance to talk, there's a strong chance the revert war would end. If they discussed and came to an agreement, ignoring 3RR in that circumstance would have been justifed and productive overall to Wikipedia. Yes, I could have reported/blocked the users and had the page protected, but if that event can be avoided, that's a good thing.
With not invoking it, IAR should never be used to justify an edit war or start one in the first place, nor should it be used to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia; and in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason at all to ignore WP:CIVIL, even when dealing with a troll, a vandal, or other problems. Using IAR in a disruptive manner is not the way the policy is supposed to be interpreted. Acalamari 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Acalamari before commenting.

Discussion

edit

Support

  1. Strong support, beat the nom. Acalamari is a really friendly and sensible guy, and has obviously learned a lot since his last RfA and knows what he's going in for now. I have complete trust in him with the tools and believe he'd be a great admin. Best of luck, - Zeibura (Talk) 18:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - I supported last time, but I have to agree in hindsight that maybe he wasn't quite ready. If you look through his edits since then, what a difference there has been, he's taken on board the opposition like a true gent and is a much stronger character and can deal with anything that is hit at him in a way that any admin should. I give Acalamari my full endorsement. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Until someone says why not. When did you get desysopped? Moreschi Talk 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He never was sysopped, his last RfA failed to reach consensus. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know that, I was trying to be funny. Evidently the attempt failed. Moreschi Talk 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was meant as a joke. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, sorry, didn't follow! *walks away* - Zeibura (Talk) 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - worked alot with this editor and they would make an excellent addition to the administrative team hear on WP. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (edit conflict) Support as nominator. Would have been quicker except for conflict!--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support Kind, helpful, cares about the project, just what I like to see in an admin. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've run across Acalamari a couple of times now, and each time I felt like he would make a fine addition to our administrative ranks. No concerns. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, again. He's a very promising candidate. I am sure he would make a good admin. —Anas talk? 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support Yes, of course. I was neutral the last time, due to some concerns about maturity, but Acalamari has truly changed phenomenally since his last RfA - I can think of few editors more mature than him! Hard worker, always civil, always gets along with people, and evidently cares deeply about us, which can only be a good thing. Riana (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per - 1) Nicely expanded and referenced answers to the questions. 2) Civility demonstrated in contribution history. 2) Activity demonstrated by count tool. 4) Anthony nominated and I have deep respect for his values. 5) Per Majorly. Unless this gets edit conflicted again....Pedro |  Chat  19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support - I missed it last time..I wont miss it again.. One of the Best Editors around..--Cometstyles 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support- per Pedro. Eddie 20:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. User:Acalamari has a WikiCrush on Alison?! Looks like you've earned some notoriety. But seriously, I like the question answers and your vast range of experience. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I like the answer to Question #4. And I'm glad that you're going to work on the CAT:CSD backlog. Darkspots 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Acalamari has changed quite a bit since his previous RfA. His skin has thickened rather nicely. Answers to the questions show just how far this candidate has come - Alison ☺ 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. Of course. I've been waiting for this one for a while. He'll make an excellent admin. Simple as that. :-) Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support WOW! A nom from anthony.bradbury? Will make a brilliant addition as a sysop. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I see a notable difference in the quality of editing in the period between RfAs from this editor, so no reason to believe that the admin tools will be abused. (aeropagitica) 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I see Acalamari too often while editing wikipedia; meaning he is a excellent contributor who will never abandon their post. Hirohisat Freedom of Speech 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Absolutely, for the same reasons as the previous time.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Would make a great admin and good answer to my optional question (let's just hope that question won't turn into a heated debate in this RfA).--PrestonH 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - No evidence that this user would abuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 22:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Significant experience, trustworthy, good person - plus we started on Wikipedia 13 days apart. It's time that Acalamari received the mop. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support A great contributer. I see no reason to oppose. --Mschel 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Very good contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, JetLover 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Per Mschel; no reason to oppose. ♠TomasBat 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - very civil user with more than sufficient experience. Addhoc 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. —AldeBaer (c) 23:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I was undecided about the previous RfA but Acalamari seems to have matured as a member of the community and I fully trust the nominator's evaluation. Pascal.Tesson 23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support for pretty much all the reasons outlined above. Tim{speak} 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Answer to my question was satisfactory enough. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I've seen this user around a lot, seems to be doing a great job. Good answers.--Húsönd 00:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No issues, nor reservations whatsoever. Jmlk17 00:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I supported last time but even if I hadn't, I think Acalamri has addressed the concerns of those who opposed. I think he'll make a good admin. WjBscribe 00:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support until I find a reason to oppose--not that that will be anytime soon! -(lemonflash)talk 00:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support. Acalamari is one of the most dedicated, hard workind and kindest editors I've ever encountered. He's an awesome candidate, just the kind that makes you think "I wish I was the one to nominate him!" Phaedriel - 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I don't see any outstanding issues. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - good editor, will use the tools well, good luck with them! —Krellis (Talk) 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. CSD and temp user pages needs more admins - often entries stay in there for a long time. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per contributions and my many interactions with him. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per a great many of the above comments, as well as the strong overall record and good answers to the questions. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Appears to be a solid contributor. Majoreditor 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support I have noticed this user when I vote in Rfa's and have noticed Acalamari in my recent changes patrolling. I am shocked that Acalamari is not already a admin. The reason why I am supporting Acalamari is A)because Acalamari is a active wikipedian B) because Acalamari is a experienced wikipedian and C) because Acalamari is a very friendly person. I feel as if being friendly is a very important quality to have if you are going to be a admin. Good luck with your Rfa!:)--†Sir James Paul† 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I didn't read everything, but I'll just say this: I can't remember what the problem was last time. Acalamari has contributed in a lot of useful ways, and will continue his valuable efforts. Adminship will only enable him to do more. Shalom Hello 03:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. + Much matured since the last RfA. Keegantalk 04:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support My impressions of Acalamari's edits and actions are positive. He could use the extra buttons. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support--MONGO 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, good editor, will make good use of the mop :). Good luck- CattleGirl talk 06:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. This is a support comment, albeit one with some slight trepidation, but a solid support nonetheless. I feel that Acalamari is clearly dedicated to the project and I feel certain that he can be trusted to use the tools to the best of his ability in the best interests of the project. My only concern is for him as a person. It has been 3 months since his last RfA and my own personal observations of him in that time have been very positive and have shown what I believe is genuine and profound growth in maturity, outlook and a reevaluation of the way he responds to vandals, trolls and otherwise difficult users, as well as the way he handles personal attacks and abuse. Three months is a very fair and decent time between nominations, especially when the first nomination didn't reveal any serious problems or deficiencies, but were mostly issues which emanated from a genuine concern for Acalamari, his sensitivity and his ability to cope with abuse and trolling. I feel some trepidation and apprehension that perhaps three months isn't enough time to be sure that there has been sufficient personal growth needed to let go of the insecurity, drama and hypersensitivity. And so my support comes as very solid support but with the proviso that he not be too proud to lean on others, on his friends, on people he trusts and respects and on the entire admin team if needed. In Acalamari's previous RfA, I was also concerned about his judgment, particularly pertaining to policy development and implementation of existing policy, most notably, as he has already mentioned above, at RFC/Usernames. Again, my hope here is that he will lean on Allie, Ryan and other more experienced admins he has come to trust and respect before jumping in at the deep end. All that said, Acalamari has my full support at this time. Sarah 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Very strong support - I'd been hoping to do a co-nom, but missed my chance, as I was offline. :-( Anyway, Acalamari will make a fantastic admin, and I'm glad to see this request should sail through. Waltontalk 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support: Acalamari can make a fine administrator, even if some people can't pronounce his or her username. ;-) —« ANIMUM » 14:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support add me without a doubt to the list of people he can lean on. Khukri 14:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support The growth this editor has shown in the last 3 months leads me to support. Acalamari is a good and dedicated editor. Keep up the good work and (echoing Sarah) continue to improve on your sensitivity and slight proclivity towards drama. — Scientizzle 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support — Acalamari-4-7-Alpha-Tango. Matthew 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support and passa the aioli.  ;-) Acalamari has consistently shown to be a thoughtful and dedicated contributor, and we are lucky to have him. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Happy to support. I've run into Acalamari on numerous occasions here and there and have always come away with a good impression. I find the answers to the questions quite satisfactory. Get the mop ready - this user will do good with it. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Acalamari is a great Wikipedian, and I have no doubts that he won't misuse the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Acalamari appears to be a terrific editor who can be trusted to click a few buttons. And count me in for the people who can't pronounce his username, hehe! gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Just adding my name... :) *Cremepuff222* 18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Sean William @ 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support. We need admins like this. :) ~EdBoy[c] 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I encountered this user only last week while following up on vandalism to User:Sarah, and came away impressed. Glad to support a fellow vandal patroller. Hiberniantears 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. I have seen this user's contributions all over the board and he always strikes me as a force of good. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. SQUIDWARD! I mean, Support, per everyone above. Will (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support a matured candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support You have quite an edit count, and good recommendations. I trust you with the mop. J-stan 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per all of the above. Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, hardworking, dedicated, sincere, ok Modernist 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support I have no doubt that this user will do well with admin tools. DarthGriz98 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support I'm fully convinced Acalamari will do an excellent job as an administrator. P3net 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Yes, yes, yes and yes... Trustworthy, maintains his civility, good article contributor, no negative interactions... To sum it all up, good candidate. --Dark Falls talk 08:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. After Mailer Diablo as usual! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support I see this user frequently and do not recall having any issues with his work. Seeing all of the support above from competent editors and I am happy to support. JodyB talk 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Terence 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Per everyone. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Very solid candidacy Johnbod 18:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Definitely Strong Support - will make a fine admin! - eo 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. What else to say? Strong contributions, and support from the community. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong Support Acalamari is a truly fine editor, Very kind and knowledgeable. I've come across his work many times and he would make a great administrator. QuasyBoy 2:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support, good editor. Everyking 07:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, undoubtedly. Per above. He is a great editor and should have been chosen to be an administrator much earlier. I have really admired (and will continue admiring for as long as I can) his editing skills. Acs4b 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I'm not familiar with the details of the issues surrounding his previous nomination, but he seems very calm and level-headed now; he also does fantastic work on pop music articles, and adminship seems to be the next logical step for him. Extraordinary Machine 14:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support She's a good editor and works in an area where more administrator supervision could be an asset to Wikipedia. Has been a great help on researching and editing some minor biographies of living people (outside of pop culture, including an African cardiovascular surgeon) in a responsible manner. Takes criticism well, by actually weighing its value. KP Botany 17:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. "Let the good times roll". --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support—Contributions look good; no reason not to support. --Paul Erik 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Full Support Good editor, will be a good admin. Would have been here to chime in sooner but I've been offline. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support (going for WP:100! :) Polite, helpful and experienced enough in my humble opinion. Acalamari, please bear Sarah's note above in mind—if you need any help in the future and I can be of assistance, I'm here :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Wonderful user. Peacent 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Shooting for WP:100! Evilclown93(talk) 12:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Excellent editor; fine addition to the admin-corps. Xoloz 16:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Superfluous support but trying to help him reach WP:100. -- DS1953 talk 01:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. An excellent editor, kind, mature, and knowledgeable. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Go to WP:100. AW 10:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. So close... Tim{speak} 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I had to indent this out. I know I'm the candidate, but you already said support above at 30. I'm sorry. Acalamari 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. SupportWP:100 Lol-FlubecaTalk 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. One hundred percent support, you're not already cliche-tastic. Unnaturally strong support here, nothing but good things to report, I see you everywhere and I hope to continue to do so once you get three extra buttons. Good luck! The Rambling Man 21:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I swear I already supported this Support. Seriously. I was shocked when I found out I hadn't. And given the current consensus, I say "Good luck with your adminship!" --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Double voter! --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you did support; you're at 89. :) Acalamari 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because my signature is upside down! I saw your RfA, ran a search for "Deskana" to see if I'd already voted, and when nothing came up (because my sig is upside down), I voted again! Whoops! --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how long it might be before someone suggests on your RfB that you think your opinion ought to count doubly and are thus unfit for bureaucratship. :) Joe 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support for reasons described before on Acalamari's talk page. By the way, Acalamari, why did you not accept my nomination and accepted this one? Just wondering. Anyway, good luck, and I know that you will make Wikipedia a better place. A•N•N•A hi! 02:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support inasmuch as I think it rather clear, especially in view of the candidate's fine construction of IAR, that the net effect on the project of Acalamari's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Aw... I wanted to be #100... anyway, no reason not to. Kwsn(Ni!) 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, hello pile-on. Wizardman 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose sorry this may seem petty... but after reading all 28 opposes in the last RFA, there is no way I can support this one. I don't think that the issues brought up in March (only 3 months ago I might add) have been resolved at this point. Sorry Acalamari... maybe next year.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Leaning to support You are a good and mature editor but still you don´t reach the level required by wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucasbunchi (talk • contribs).
    Would you mind clarifying that further please? --Dark Falls talk 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Probable SPA, if you look at xyr edits. Majorly (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Acalamari_2&oldid=1258116886"