Dragons flight

final (28/2/0) ending 05:09 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Dragons flight (talk · contribs) has been contributing to Wikipedia for over two years now and has already been mistaken for an administrator. Ta bu shi da yu described him as "impartial and fair", and I have also noticed his thoughtful, levelheaded approach. In fact, Ta bu shi da yu and William M. Connolley might be considered co-nominators — they wanted to nominate Dragons flight a month ago, and we've finally persuaded him to accept. Dragons flight also contributed to solving the longstanding page duplication bug, which is greatly appreciated. And, while it's not particularly critical to adminship, he has created some very nice images. --Michael Snow 05:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. In the interest of full disclosure, I want to note that my first 100 edits were distributed over some 15 months, so it has only been since about January that I have been putting regular effort into Wikipedia. Dragons flight 05:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Michael Snow 05:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems like a good candidate. Everyking 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. An actively helpful guy all-around. Great candidate! Dmcdevit·t 05:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. I haven't had much to do with DF, but anyone who fixed the page/section doubling bug deserves every reward the community can bestow. I realise that this doesn't necessarily qualify him for admin (maybe for developer), but he's clearly an example of a very good egg.-gadfium 05:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support. Andre (talk) 07:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
6. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Alphax ^τεχ 07:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Martin (Bluemoose) 08:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Vsmith 13:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Thunderbrand 14:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. ~~ N (t/c) 14:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Definitely. Radiant_>|< 23:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
13. Strong support (by which I mean support) - anyone who fixed the page duplication bug in Wikipedia should be sainted, not just made an admin for all to jeer at :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Seen lots of great work and level headed discussions. ∞Who?¿? 07:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. El_C 07:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 16:05
17. Support, Christopher Parham (talk) 16:09, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
18. Support. Kirill Lokshin | Talk 16:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, by all means. +sj + 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Every edit I've seen has been well reasoned. This is one of those that I wish I had nominated. Maybe that means I should spend more time looking for good admin candidates. - Taxman ^Talk 02:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, DF has made some great contributions to Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. support. --Irpen 01:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Thryduulf 12:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support The JPS 21:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support -- DS1953 04:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - Guettarda 04:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - a huge number of Wikipedia namespace edits and seems experienced. He also has many valuable article contributions. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - and pleased to be a co-nominator, even if in absentia (back from hols now). William M. Connolley 23:13:54, 2005-08-19 (UTC).

Oppose

1. Oppose I am somewhat concerned that the 4 co-proposers all come from the far (but not completely extreme) end of one single religio-political POV. If there was someone from the opposing POV co-proposing my view may change. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   What religio-political POV might that be? And what four people are you talking about? --Michael Snow 06:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll second that. I don't know what side of any POV I'd need to be a part of to meet your opposing POV criteria, but in any case, I find it highly irrelevant to whether he would make a good admin. We all have biases (unconscious or not), but I trust that he wouldn't use admin rights improperly based on his biases and that is the only thing that matters for this purpose. - Taxman ^Talk 02:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

2. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Boothy has been identified as using multiple vandal sockpuppets and has been temporarily blocked. It's safe to say his votes no longer count. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 15:50

   Do not strike out any non-anon's votes. It is up to the bureaucrats to consider the validity of votes at promotion time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I stronly diagree with striking down Boothy's votes, unlike votes he (if so) places via sockpuppets. He has a vote. He chooses to oppose almost everyone. It's like a voter who votes "no confidence" at all elections. Legit position. --Irpen 01:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

   I agree with you. I hate how others consider his vote inferior. It's not like he opposes every nominee. He supported Func. Acetic Acid 05:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)