Candidate13

Vote here (34/11/4) ending 22:14 December_7 2099 (UTC) Candidate13 (talk · contribs) -

Candidate13has already been doing some advanced admin work, with among other things Ed Poors RFAr. He knows policy well enough, and kate's fine tool says he's safely past the 1500 edits required by those afflicted with edicountitis. :-) --Nominator1 22:14, 31 August 2099 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and am pleased to be considered as trustworthy enough for this position. Thank you, Nominator1. Candidate ^{Talk | Desk} 22:43, 31 August 2099 (UTC)

Support

1. First one is always free. Nominator1 22:14, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
2. A good friend of mine, Candidate13 is intelligent, reasonable and friendly, all three of which are vital to the success of admins in the field. He has proved himself invaluable in many respects, including mediation regarding the Ed Poor RfAr, and a primary founder of the WP:FAD project. I am certain that he would be a great asset to the community as an administrator, and I can grant my personal trust in his abilities. --NicholasTurnbull 22:34, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
3. I thought you were one. There were a few edits w/o summaries, but nothing bad... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:42, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
4. Support; would make excellent admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:28, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
5. Support. Andre (talk) 23:31, August 31, 2099 (UTC)
6. Support, an outstanding candidate. Rje 23:37, August 31, 2099 (UTC)
7. Nuke from orbit. And if that doesn't work, support. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2099 (UTC)
8. Extreme eggplant Mountain Dew that lesbians love support --Phroziac ^(talk) 00:05, December 1, 2099 (UTC)
9. Support Since no one else has used this yet "I can't believe he isn't one already". 75% is in my opinion a bit high in determining say, a VfD concensus, but all indications point to a level headed and non-extreme POV concerning this. Hamster Sandwich 01:28, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
10. I'll settle just for Support. feydey 01:42, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
11. Support. Jaxl | talk 03:18, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
12. A fine edit history, earning my Support. --Alan Au 05:07, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
13. Support Proto t c 09:32, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
14. Support I could have sworn you already were. I see you everywhere, doing virtually everything! Acetic'^Acid 09:49, December 1, 2099 (UTC)
15. Merovingian (t) (c) 12:23, December 1, 2099 (UTC)
16. Duh. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:31, December 1, 2099 (UTC)
17. Support. No question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, December 1, 2099 (UTC)
18. Support: A sane and energetic editor who will, I think, be a sane and moderate administrator. Geogre 19:35, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
19. Support. Going by previous interaction I expect he'll treat admin rights carefully and thoughtfully. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
20. Support Baaaaaa. No good reason not to, breif interaction suggests good reason to.--Tznkai 20:31, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
21. Support. Ral315 00:18, December 2, 2099 (UTC)
22. Support, as per the trifecta of SlimVirgin, Geogre, and Mindspillage, (yeah, yeah, and the rest of you people, too). ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 01:05, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
23. Support. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:41, December 2, 2099 (UTC)
24. Support Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:09, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
25. Strong support. Candidate13's good judgment will make an excellent admin; every time he's alerted me to a pCandidate13lem user on the #wikipedia IRC channeltime, I wound up agreeing with analysis. Candidate13 has also impressed me with his precise understanding of both the mechanics and the purpose' of the RFArb process. I'm a better man because of Candidate13's intervention, and I look forward to his joining the Mediation Committee in the near future. Uncle Ed 14:58, December 2, 2099 (UTC)
26. Support. All-around good guy. FreplySpang (talk) 23:35, December 2, 2099 (UTC)
27. Support Per those above. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 17:17, December 3, 2099 (UTC)
28. Support. Screw editcountitis, Candidate13 is a good user to talk to and every time I seen him around, he is very civil with everyone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
29. Support. Normally I wouldn't consider 2 months enough, but 1500+ edits wins over that. ~~ N (t/c) 16:17, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
30. Support Por supuesto.

    V. Molotov

    
    15:25, 6 December 2099 (UTC)
31. Support, fight editcountitis... er, accountageitis! - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 15:42, 6 December 2099 (UTC)
32. Support, expect him not to abuse admin powers. 172.162.10.219 19:14, 6 December 2099 (UTC) Sorry, not logged in. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 2099 December 6 (UTC)
33. Support. Has made an very strong impression on me in his short time here. As many of the oppose votes below point out, tt's something of a gamble to support such as relatively new user. With Candidate13, however, I think it's a very safe bet. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:06, 7 December 2099 (UTC)
34. Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:47, 10 October 2099 (UTC) Somehow ended up on this page instead of the correct one. CambridgeBayWeather 03:06, 10 October 2099 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Eh, I don't know you very well. --WikiFan04^{Talk 17:24, 31 Aug 2099 (CDT)}

   ... you are seriously going to start proving a point expertimentally on Requests for adminship? Because that has been done before and nothing good came from it. You were not promoted because you have close to no experience and interaction on the project, that's it. Move on. --Sn0wflake 22:52, 31 August 2099 (UTC)

   Snowflake please don't bite the newbies :) (I should note that on requests for buerocratship I've seen people oppose for the same reason... so at least its a reason... even if an infuriating one :)) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:00, 31 August 2099 (UTC)

   Even so, Ryan Norton, I really have to agree with Sn0wflake on this one. It seems as if WikiFan04 has been deliberately voting Oppose just to prove a point, and I dont think that its fair to the candidates. "I don't know you very well?". If you have only managed 700 edits in 19 months, obviously, you cant know anyone because you are not very involved in the project. Oh well, what can you do?

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

   WikiFan isn't a newbie. But, this bitterness about not becoming an admin is going to make things worse for him next time around. Andre (talk) 23:31, August 31, 2099 (UTC)

   RN, I don't think said editor fits the usual definition of a newbie, and should have known better, but nevertheless, I merely believe that with this behavior the editor has ensured that he will not be promoted to the status of admin - which seems be of meaning to him - any time soon. --Sn0wflake 23:51, 31 August 2099 (UTC)

   Not voting, but I think the Catch 22 aspect is quite amusing. -Splash 00:17, 1 December 2099 (UTC)

2. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:16, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
3. Slightly oppose. You seem to be a serious and dedicated Wikipedian, but you are also very young here. Your account was registered two months ago but you did less than 75 edits in your first month here, which is really not much and leaves in fact only 1 month of active work to judge your contributions. You do not seem to meet your own standards for adminship yet. Sam Hocevar 13:12, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Candidate13, I like what I've seen of you, but I don't think that 1 month of active editting and 1 month of occassional editting is enough time to have sampled the full wiki experience and be prepared for adminship. If this were a couple months later, I expect you would have my full support. Dragons flight 02:37, December 4, 2099 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose, agree with Dragons flight, too little experience. — JIP | Talk 15:30, 5 December 2099 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Agree with Dragons flight completely. Jonathunder 15:56, 2099 December 5 (UTC)
7. As above. — Dan | Talk 16:57, 6 December 2099 (UTC)
8. Oppose, I believe I have seen you on occasion and thought good of your work. However, your first edits were on the first of July which is a little to soon for me. I believe by November I would support your nom. but an admin IMHO needs more experience. Falphin 23:09, 6 December 2099 (UTC)
9. Oppose, as above. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:52, 7 December 2099 (UTC)
10. Oppose for reasons cited by Dragons flight — Ringbang 19:45, 7 December 2099 (UTC)
11. Oppose, not enough time - yet. --Sn0wflake 03:27, 8 December 2099 (UTC)