Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carcharoth

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

Carcharoth

Final (147/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth (talk · contribs) - I’ve nommed a lot of people here at Wikipedia for adminship. This goes without saying. Heck, this would actually be my 25th nomination. Yet this might be, imo, my best nomination to date. I present to RfA the user by the name of Carcharoth, a guy who I thought was an admin for many months, tried to nom for months, and am hoping that he will accept now. I've also never come close to writing a nomination this long, so that shows you how I feel about wanting him as an administrator.

My original encounter with him was during the Summer biography assessment drive. Things got tense between us assessors and some old guard editors, and things probably would’ve have gotten pretty heated had Carcharoth not constantly been the voice of reason between the both of us. With one side saying, “The assessment drive is disrupting Wikipedia”, which I do remember getting frustrated about myself and contributing sparingly to the drive in July. It was at this part where his very constructive demeanor and great reasoning made me think he was a long time admin. Turns out he wasn’t, and he declined my original request for a nomination in early July.

Since then, I’ve been looking out for where he’s been contributing, and he is able to impress me in other areas as well. Pretty much any section of Wikipedia you can think of, you’ll see a great amount of work that he’s done. Article writing? I’ll point you to Astronomische Nachrichten, which he has spent the past week or two on, turning it into a real nice article. And if he can’t do it completely by himself, he’ll gladly help out others with articles. At Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_5, he contributed a lot of information and helped out himself tremendously with the article. Image fixing? He is able to find sources for PD images so that we don't lose them, such as in Image:EPChristy.jpg and Image:Mansfield Lovell.jpg, which helps tremendously. He also helps out tremendously with discussion regarding nonfree content as well (See WT:NFC). How about categorizing redirects? He even helped create the Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects guideline. He's also turned many redlinks at Royal Medal and Willard Gibbs Medal blue, simply by searching for the articles and creating redirects. Now to move to the subject of WikiProjects, he is an asset to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth, where he is a strong participant in what appears to be many, many different aspects of the project. Of course, a great way to find a helpful user is through the village pump or help desk, and Carcharoth is certainly an active face at these pages as well. Yet, he does all this great work around here, and I haven‘t even gotten to his strongest quality yet.

Many admins who participate in the village pump and ANI have most likely run into Carcharoth at some point in time. Every edit I’ve looked at is an intelligent piece of rhetoric, and he is clearly a constructive discusser first and foremost, which is vital for many of the more difficult issues admins face daily. Even on really contentious issues, such as the whole RfA/RfC/MfD mess last week here, he was a very reasonable voice during this tense time, making absolute sense out of everything despite not having followed RfA in a while (his words). Besides that, if you look at his user talk edits and randomly pick one, you’ll find a great idea, a nice piece of advice, or just good discussion regarding something.

If you haven’t seen my point yet, this guy does everything, is one of our most intelligent users, and would be even more of an asset as an admin. Wikipedia could use more Carcharoths, and if he’s been this constructive and great without the tools, imagine how amazing he’ll be with them. I'll provide diffs of his amazing work if need be as well. Wizardman 03:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Carcharoth 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate statement I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, and would also like to make a statement here to give a bit more background to the nomination.

My first contributions were in January 2005, though I didn't start contributing regularly until January 2006. As an editor, I enjoy tidying up around the place, adding some content, and contributing to discussions. I occassionally considered whether I needed the admin tools, but always found enough to occupy me without them. I also enjoyed article editing too much!

Then, around a year ago, someone asked me if I wanted to be nominated to have the admin tools. Part of the reason for this statement is that I want to explain why I've dithered for almost a year before finally accepting a nomination (I'd also like to thank everyone who asked previously and encouraged me). I agree with the basic philosophy that adminship is no big deal, but I also hold myself to high standards. I wanted to be properly organised and have a detailed knowledge of policy before considering this step. Thankfully, one of the discussions on my talk page managed to disabuse me of that mindset and convinced me that a certain amount of learning on the job is OK. All it took then was persistence from Wizardman and, finally, a realisation on my part that I was going to dither until the cows came home unless I semi-organised myself and went ahead and accepted.

I haven't checked my latest spread of edits, but I tend to edit roughly equally in article space and in project space, while also editing in template and category space (and talk pages in all these spaces). My edit count should be taken with a pinch of salt, as I suffer from a terminal inability to use the preview button on a regular basis. As noted above, my image work has also increased lately (though actual uploads tend to be to Commons). I have tended to edit in lots of different areas, gaining a widespread general knowledge, rather than specialising in a particular area. I go into more detail on this below, but I hope that my widespread editing experience will stand me in good stead for using the administrative tools. Carcharoth 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I read the administrator's noticeboard and the incidents noticeboard semi-regularly, and would continue to contribute there and would use the tools to help out instead of just offering advice. I have also used the template {{editprotected}} in the past to suggest edits to protected pages (generally ones left protected after being on the main page, or templates in widespread use), and would instead use the tools to make such edits (unless they needed discussion first). I would also be interested in helping out with tasks like reviewing (and deciding whether to delete) the items in categories for speedy deletion (including images), helping out with tasks at the Main Page templates (such as Did you know? and In the news). I would also be happy to help out with closing articles for deletion, and other "X for deletion" debates, though I would re-aquaint myself with any particular area and re-read the relevant policies and guidelines before assessing consensus (if any) and closing any debates. I would also avoid closing debates that I hold a strong opinion on, and would instead join the debate as an ordinary editor. I also intend to practice at Wikipedia:New admin school if I am unsure about how to use any of the tools.

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

A: Wizardman has pointed out a few, some of which I had forgotten about! To help me keep track of what I have done here, I (fairly) recently set up the page User:Carcharoth/Contributions as a way to systematically record some of the areas I have edited in. The contributions I have been particularly proud of are Astronomische Nachrichten (as part of a collaboration with the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals), La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial, and Serge Voronoff (the latter because others took over and expanded it immensely). I have also enjoyed the collaborative editing and reviewing processes at Featured article candidates and Featured article review, standing in awe at the work done by some editors on featured articles such as James I of England. I also took part in the discussions and work for the redesign of the Main Page which went live in March 2006 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page). I have also done a lot of category work (the original work being at Category:Disasters, Category:Natural disasters, and their subpages), and am currently trying to help improve index sorting of biographical articles and the related issue of disambiguation pages for people's names.

However, that is mostly article stuff. If I may quote from Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship:

"The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's [...] strength as an editor. It is a forum by which consensus is generated on whether an editor should be given administrator rights [...] it is an evaluation of their likely ability to appropriately use administrator rights."

Given that, I would say my best contributions to Wikipedia (in the context of a request for adminship) have been in the form of carefully reasoned debate and helping to form a consensus. Though the article contributions mentioned above do demonstrate an investment in the process of creating Wikipedia, I agree with Wizardman when he describes me as "clearly a constructive discusser first and foremost".

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: I have been involved in many lengthy discussions over editing. I don't think I'd call them conflicts, as Wikipedia is not a battleground, but it has been stressful at times trying to communicate a certain viewpoint to some editors. I try and deal with this as I always do: by taking things to talk pages, or other discussion forums, and continuing to discuss the problems with the editor(s) involved and trying to reach an understanding over what should be done. I don't think any of the disagreements escalated into anything major, though I'm happy to answer questions about any particular incidents. I have disagreed with some editors over their wiki-philosophy, recently in the area of categories and images. I have briefly looked back through my last 5000 edits. Two examples I have come up with are two lengthy deletion debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 20#Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg. I am not proud of the language and rhetoric I used in my initial contribution to the latter debate, but I hope people will agree that the later course of the debate was more fruitful, and that I am usually more civil than that. Sometimes, when things are stressful, I find the best thing to do is to take a deep breath, re-read what I've written (before saving), and start again.

Optional questions from Kim Bruning

4. What is the policy trifecta. Why did the author pick those policies? Do you agree with them?

A: (a) I'd say the policy trifecta is a grouping of three core policies from which most other policies and guidelines can be derived. One intent seems to have been to keep things simple for editors who feel overwhelmed by the vast amount of policies and guidelines, reducing things to the basics in a similar way to Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and Wikipedia:Five pillars. The trifecta is not itself a guideline or policy or essay, but one of a set of pages giving an overview of how policies interact and work together. After he asked this question, I asked Kim about the history, and he provided me with this link. It seems it all started with Wikipedia:Wikirules proposal, and then the simplified ruleset started, followed soon after by the policy trifecta as a simplified version of the simplified ruleset, and then (after a comparison of the two) came the Five Pillars (sort of a compromise between the trifecta and the simplified ruleset).

(b) I guess the author picked these policies because they corresponded to the simple statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by a community using a wiki." If Wikipedia was an instruction manual, edited by one person, and written with pen and paper, then many of the basic polices would no longer apply. In other words, much of the basic policies and guidelines are direct and indirect consequences of these three basic characteristics of Wikipedia, so if you remember those three things, you are more than halfway to understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

(c) Do I agree with the policies? Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, yes, though I do think the wording of 'neutral' was an unfortunate historical choice. It does immediately send a "be objective" message, but I think it is better to use words like "balance" and "undue weight", as being neutral can sometimes end up being unbalanced. In other words, don't exclude points of view, or over-emphasise a particular point of view, but equally don't give undue weight to minority opinions. The best way to begin achieving this balancing act, in my opinion, is to reflect the sources you use. Read a wide range of sources thoroughly to get an overall feel for a subject, and then consider how best to present the information in those sources in an article or set of articles. I disgree with the way the trifecta presents sources and verifiability as corollaries of NPOV. In my view, sources and verifiability should be obvious and basic starting points for any encyclopedia (or information system), but the wiki process seems to encourage people to type any old rubbish in... NPOV should be about how best to present the verifiable information. Do I agree with meta:Don't be a dick? Yes, be civil and engage with people rather than confronting or deflecting them. Do I agree with ignore all rules? Yes, don't blindly follow policy and guidelines, though if you are going to ignore them, have a good reason for doing so, and a convincing argument, usually based on "this will improve the encyclopedia".

I'm not fully convinced that IAR flows from the wiki part of Wikipedia, though I suppose the way anyone can edit the policies and guidelines is important for the idea that policy can be fluid and not fixed in stone. I personally prefer the simplified ruleset and the five pillars, and the trifecta I normally remember is the WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V one, but the policy trifecta you asked about is definitely an elegant way of deriving at least some of Wikipedia's core principles from a simple description. Carcharoth 02:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Update - this is rather embarassing, but someone has pointed out that meta:Don't be a dick is actually an essay. I described the trifecta as a "grouping of three core policies", when in fact it is two polices and an essay. I knew that the link was to meta, so it couldn't be a Wikipedia policy page, so I'm not quite sure why I made this simple error. The basic point still remains that this second principle within the trifecta is about civil behaviour within a community, regardless of which essay, guideline or policy is cited. Carcharoth 11:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

5. (A common situation:) Someone comes to a page on your watchlist, and starts to make a large number of edits about which you are personally certain that they are patently false. You have admin tools. What do you do?

A: I would do what I would have done before I had the admin tools. I would revert the changes they had made (that I felt were false), with a clear explanation in the edit summary. I would then, depending on the circumstances, discuss the edits with the user on their user talk page or on the article talk page, and explain why I reverted their changes. For example, if they hadn't provided sources, I would ask that they provide sources. What happens after that would depend on the discussion that took place. This generally follows the principles of the Harmonious editing club. Hopefully we would reach agreement on what needed to be done as far as the article goes. As far as admin tools go, I don't see any need to use them in this situation. In particular the admin rollback tool would not be appropriate because it leaves no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. There is also the undo option available to anyone when viewing a diff, but again that leaves an automated edit summary with little explanation. In general, I dislike using tools that use automated edit summaries unless I can modify the edit summaries before saving them. Having said this, I thought I should check my last 1000 edits and see what I've actually been doing. I searched for "revert" in the edit summary, and found the following: reverted what I saw as clear vandalism; strange name change that I double-checked and then reverted as vandalism; reverted and requested source. Carcharoth 11:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Piotrus

6: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I have followed some of the discussions involving that category before. I can understand why some people have problems with that process, but I also think it is reassuring to have a sizeable number of admins in that category. I've been reading the record of past requests, and also User:Friday/recall (the only recall criteria I could find offhand other than the criteria suggested in the category). I agree with Friday that ultimately the correct way to handle this kind of thing is to open a request for comments on the admin actions (I've suggested this kind of admin review process at the recent request for comments on reforming the requests for adminship process). For now, though, I would be happy to add myself to that category if I am granted the admin tools. My criteria, until I can come up with my own essay or thoughts, would be those laid out by Friday, as linked above, though I can rustle up my own criteria in the next few days if needed. In short, the answer is "yes". Carcharoth 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Carcharoth's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Carcharoth: Carcharoth (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Strongest Possible Support as nom :) Wizardman 17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Very good user who knows policy--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. The candidate seems to be a good contributor, has helped to build many fine articles and appears to be trustworthy. Majoreditor 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support. Really strong candidate. --JayHenry 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - In the times and places I have seen this user, they have acted with maturity, dignity and civility and they have made meaningful contributions to the encyclopaedia. I believe this user would use the mop well. Orderinchaos 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Per above - outstanding candidate. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - I've been after this Wikipedian to become an admin for quite some time. He's thoughtful, whether in dealing with articles, other Wikipedians, or whatever the topic at hand is. He's involved in policy and project discussions of nearly every level. (Indeed he is one of those who I tend to see involved in/commenting on a discussion before I ever get there.) He's heavily involved in the Middle Earth WikiProject. And has helped several articles attain or retain their featured or good status. The bottom line: I trust this editor's good sense and discernment and discretion. - jc37 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. No problems. --Kbdank71 18:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Absolutely. Carcharoth is an excellent candidate.--chaser - t 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I strongly doubt this user will abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Yes. This user will be a great addition to the admin group. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support experience, trustworthy, very active. No doubts, you need the tools. Carlosguitar 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong support You're ready. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Sure. He's been around a while, hasn't done anything unreasonable that I know of. Friday (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Talk about someone I thought already was one! --Groggy Dice T | C 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support This editor is the embodiment of what it means to be a Wikipedian. It will benefit this project only further to have him join the admin team. A wealth of experience and sound policy knowledge. It's a pleasure to support such an excellent candidate. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
17. But of course. Moreschi ^Talk 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Embarrassing to admit this considering how I like to lurk at RfA, but I thought he already had the twiddly bits. Time to fix that. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Well, yes. Rudget _{Contributions} 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support I assumed this person was already an admin. — DIEGO ^talk 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Excellent candidate and per Pedro--WriterListener 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Everything I've seen seems good. David Underdown 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support per above. I've run across his name a few times before, and see no reason why he shouldn't become and admin. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, I've only ever seen good things wherever this user's name shows up. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support looks good. Bearian 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Happy to chime in. Ronnotel 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Kaktibhar 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Banned User. Miranda 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

27. Support. Dedicated editor. Cla68 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Great editor with absolutely no problems. Captain panda 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support experienced, active and valid editor. To me he's okay. --Angelo 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Eh? I thought you were an admin. bibliomaniac15 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Strong support As per Angelo and Wizardman and Has more than 8000 mainspace edits and more than 26000 overall.Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Highly qualified candidate, no issues or concerns at all. Welcome to the ranks, however belatedly you chose to join them. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support on the basis that as I've seen your name around lots in connection with lots of excellent work, I'm sure that an additional ability to push the odd button here and there to help keep the place tidy will not be wasted on you! Bencherlite^Talk 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support per biblomaniac. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support no concerns whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Wow, I thought I was being punked. I literally had to check his logs to believe he wasn't already one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

    I had one of those moments awhile back when I first discovered that he wasn't. So don't feel alone : ) - jc37 03:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

37. Support Have never seen any sign that this user might abuse the tools if given them. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
38. For sure - would not misuse the tools. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Strong Support...although I despise Carcharoth. An awesome nomination written for an awesome Wikipedian; Carcharoth is well-deserving of the tools, and he has proved himself to be a knowledgeable and valuable editor. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. I've seen many of his contributions on the noticeboards. A good record, and I have no concerns at all. EdJohnston 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Daniel 06:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. Excellent candidate. Well-versed in all major Wikipedia areas from mainspace article content to discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support per good experiences with this user in the past. Dekimasuよ! 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support A great editor who would make an excellent admin as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Yeps. Much abused cliche but I always assumed this user already had the tools. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Wow, IIRC I never hesitated any shorter to issue my strong support of an RfA. Civil and intelligent, hard-working and loyal. "Awesome Wikipedian" is as spot-on and succinct a description as possible. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Of course! When he recently posted on my talk page, I was suprised to see that he could not see deleted edits - I had been sure he was an admin... Kusma (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support as per Daniel... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Of course. --Folantin 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Support: <cliche>Insert suitable cliche here.</cliche> Nick 09:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought you were already an admin. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Support I don't foresee abuse from Carcharoth with the mop. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support, the effort on Astronomische Nachrichten was exceptional, and from what I have seen of the contrib history it is also typical of Carcharoth's dedication. John Vandenberg 09:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
55. Support, a fully merited promotion (overdue, even) to moppiness. Sam Blacketer 10:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - Only possible concern is 'too good to be true'... but I think we can risk it. :] --CBD 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
57. Support, as per a few above, I really did think he was an admin already. Had I known, I would have been pestering to nominate him months ago. Neil ☎ 11:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Nothing to say after reading that nom, great editor. Phgao 11:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, of course. older ≠ wiser 14:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
60. <stereotype>Wha', he ain't one already?</stereotupe> Duja► 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
61. Support per nom. --John 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
62. Me too. Hard to find a better all-round candidate than Carcharoth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
63. Finally! El_C 16:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
64. Support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
65. Support seen this editor around, don't always agree, but he knows the ropes, give him a mop! :-) Carlossuarez46 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
66. I remember asking Carcharoth for help back when I was a new user and had no clue where to find the information I needed on Wikipedia, that was when he quickly came to my aid and kindly gave me directions. I've see him around very often since that day, and he's always sensible, thoughtful and well-mannered. It is without a doubt that Carcharoth will make an excellent administrator. Glad to support. PeaceNT 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
67. Support without hesitation. And count me among the many who thought Carcharoth already was a sysop. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Mostly I've agreed with Carcharoth's often boldly worded, always well thought-out comments on policy and editing, and very occasionally I haven't. But I have no doubt he'd be a very good administrator. Welcome aboard. Chick Bowen 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
69. Support, an excellent, neutral, thoughtful editor that I believe will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
70. Support Hope its not too late to jump on the Carcharoth bandwagon.--Alabamaboy 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
71. Strong Support. It never occurred to me that Carcharoth might not already be an admin.--ragesoss 01:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
72. Support--Húsönd 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
73. Support, good editor, consistently reasonable. We should have made him an admin a while ago. Everyking 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
74. Jbeach ^sup 03:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
75. Support, yes, a great user. However, I will be requesting your immediate desysopping if you should bite off Beren's hand. Keep that in mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
76. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
77. Strong Support I did not think that he was an admin; but I certainly think that he should have been. A verey strong candidate with detailed knowledge of and experience in the project. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
78. Support Always wondered when this would be coming — Lost^(talk) 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
79. Support. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 13:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
80. Support. True cliche moment. Super-abundantly qualified for the position, should have been mopped a long time ago. Xoloz 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
81. Enthusiastic support. Definitely a case where I thought he already was an admin. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
82. Strong Support - This is one of the best candidate's I've seen in quite a while! Well done, I'm confident you'll make a great admin! Lradrama 16:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
83. Support John254 17:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
84. Strong candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
85. Support an excellent Wikipedian. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
86. 86th support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 21:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
87. Support seems like a good candidate.Spevw 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
88. Have bumped into this user a time or two. Seems consistently sane. Hope he's not a time bomb. —Cryptic 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
89. Support. Absolutely. Thought s/he was one, and I don't often write that. Espresso Addict 03:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
90. Strong support thought of nominating him myself 2 or 3 times but never got around to it. Excellent user who has more than enough experience. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
91. Support. No brainer really (the argument ofr voting, not the nominee) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
92. Support. This man is a hound. Appoint him immediately. qp10qp 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
93. Support absolutely, this guy's great. I've had the fortune to meet him in a number of occasions and was impressed by his good sense and friendliness. I no this is banal to say, but the only thing that surprises me is that he's not already an admin.--Aldux 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
94. Make-it-to-WP:100 support! MaxSem 19:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
95. Strong supoort– Wizardman is a great admin, and if he thinks this user would be one too, then he must be right. Ksy92003(talk) 19:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
96. Support, surprised you're not an admin already. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
97. Support I usually don't poke around here, but I've seen this user, thoughtful, looking to contribute, and doing so successfully. I would both trust him with the tools and have every confidence that he will use them, actively and productively. Jd2718 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
98. Support For all the reasons above, and for your lengthy history of solid contributions. I appreciated your answer to Q3 as evident you learn from your own actions, which I believe is a strength any admin must have. Best of luck! Hiberniantears 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
99. Support Looks great! I was very impressed by the candidate's answers, particularly Q3. GlassCobra 01:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
100. Support Great user, very impressed with the way he engaged in civil discourse over on some WP:AN debates. Was surprsied when checking Listusers to learn that he wasn't already an admin. hbdragon88 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
101. Support Great Wikipedian, excellent admin material! gidonb 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
102. Strong Support Insightful on ANI and elsewhere. Not a doubt in the slightest that Carcharoth deserves the mop. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
103. +1 Support --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
104. Support Catchpole 07:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
105. Support I had previously offered to nominate him for adminship. I almost missed seeing this, since I haven't been as active for the last few months for reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. I'm glad I can add my praise, respect and appreciation for this candidate. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
106. Support, good luck. Hiding Talk 12:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
107. Support. Consistently civil user with excellent judgment. One of the best adminship candidates to come along in a while. IronGargoyle 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
108. Support Clearly capable, fine selection. - Modernist 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
109. Support - Good editor. Unlikely to abuse admin abilities, though could have more AIV edits, I don't see any. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
110. Well, duh! - pile-on support - Alison ^❤ 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
111. Strong Support User seems to have great credentials and it looks like everyone else agrees so far.... Dustihowe 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
112. Support I've been really impressed with your comments about the whole ANI issue, so I naturally assumed that you were an admin already. I think different admins bring different skills to the job, and I totally trust you in the well-reasoned, well-thought out discourse aspect of it. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
113. Oppose. Hmm, only 26,000+ edits, poor edit summary usage 2 years ago, had fewer than 1000 edits in one of the last seven months, only 415 edits to Admin Noticeboard, has the trust of only 112 other supporters before me, didn't answer optional question 4, seems to know policy like the back of his hand, and has been a Wikipedia editor for under three years. Wait, nevermind, Strongest Possible Support! This guy will become an excellent administrator; he'll do great with the tools. Useight 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
114. Support - I wish this new admin would devote some time to mainspace article building but otherwise seems like a good admin. candidate. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
     • See the history of Orion (mythology), which he helped make FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
115. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
116. Support He isn't one already? He understands the policies, has a great track record of edits. Woodym555 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
117. Support pile-on: long and honorable history of contributions, no problems. Eminently moppable. Durova^Charge! 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
118. Support. I normally don't bother voting on shoe-ins or clearly doomed RfA's but I make an exception for this user with great pleaure (Please no thank you notes when this passes, if possible :) ). Long overdue. --Irpen 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
119. Support I'm afraid that this is another "He's not?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
120. Support--MONGO 06:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
121. Pile-on Support Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 07:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
122. Support -- Wow, Carcharoth, I thought you were an admin already! You obviously don't need another support vote, but I would be remiss were I to not publicly and enthusiastically support your admin candidacy. You will certainly improve Wikipedia with the tools, and I thank you in advance for taking on the additional responsibility. Jeffpw 07:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
123. Support. What the-? How the-? Not a-? A Talk:Main Page mainstay and I'm always up for new recruits to the Main Page cabal. - BanyanTree 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
124. Support - butter and crappy Silmarillion joke. Will ^(talk) 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
125. Strong Support - I've never seen any reason to question this editor's judgement, temperment, or ability, and I've at least peripherally worked with him for some time. I have no doubt whatsoever that he would be an excellent admin. John Carter 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
126. Strong Support piling on. —Anas ^talk? 05:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
127. Support Should be a good admin. Davewild 07:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
128. Support Allow me to pile on... Dureo 10:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
129. Support Well deserved—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
130. Support. Absolutely - perceptive and intelligent user well-versed in Wikipedia's policies. Should make an excellent administrator. WjBscribe 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
131. A good candidate. Acalamari 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
132. Support. Definitely. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
133. Support. I've been impressed by this editor's openness to other people's ideas. The Wikipedia model has a tendency to attract those who have a high opinion of their own opinion, so this is a rare and much valued quality. Geometry guy 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
134. Support. Like Dureo said. -- llywrch 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
135. Support. Nice and helpful guy. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
136. Support Abso-positivelutely! I've had the extreme pleasure of a dialog with Carch in the past, and (s)/he was extremely helpful to me in suggesting that I turn what originally was simply a comment on a talk page, into an essay to help newcomers. Carcharoth worked with myself, and several administrators in the early drafts of the essay, helping it touch on the issues we all had in mind, and helping with the wording and formatting. I found this editor to be wonderfully fun to talk to, friendly, kind, gentle with suggestions, and yet able to explain policy and guidelines when stating items of note. I looked forward to our dialog, always assured that Carch would provide a rational explanation for any issues that arose. I think that Carcharoth will make a most excellent administrator, and with such a wonderful grasp of a wide variety of areas, will be able to contribute when and where needed. The fact that Carcharoth was not in a rush to become an administrator, but wanted to gain more experience first, is further evidence that the tools will be in the right hands, with no risk of abuse. Carcharoth's participation in WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AFD, WP:VP, WP:RD, WikiProjects, and the Help Desk further shows the talent this editor has with helping others, assisting in mediation of disputes, and working with others as a team. I have the utmost faith in this editor, and have often wished our paths have crossed more often. I eagerly look forward to being able to congratulate Carcharoth soon, and I am sure the community will benefit from this editor's experience and work ethic. Ariel♥Gold 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
137. Support- More than qualified. --Sharkface217 02:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
138. Tardy WP:138 support per most everyone else. Joe 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
139. Support - Solid candidate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
140. Support - I used to think the "thought he already was an admin" comments were a bit phony but I now find myself saying it. I did already think he was an admin and was surprised to see him up for RFA. Give him the damn mop already. --Richard 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
141. Support. When I was active, I had some great experiences with Carcharoth in the middle-earth project. I am glad to see him becoming an admin, I'm sure he'll be a great one. SorryGuy 08:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
142. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
143. Support. It's a pleasure to support such a fine editor. Mike Christie (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
144. Support Insert cliche here. Wait... east.718 at 14:04, 10/25/2007
145. Not an admin yet? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
146. Strong support This is about where I was, in edit counts, when I became an admin. Why isn't he already an admin? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
147. Support, naturally. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, just to be awkward Stifle (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Nah...

Neutral

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.