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

Ice Cold Beer[edit]

Final: (104/4/1); ended 08:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) - Hi there. I began editing Wikipedia on 30 October 2007 and since then have contributed to the project with 3500+ edits. In February of this year, I was granted rollback rights. With rollbacker privileges, I have been able to improve the encyclopedia in a more efficient manner than I had been able to previously. I am now asking the community to grant me a few more tools, with which I hope to be able to contribute more effectively.

You may notice that at the current time my user page redirects to my talk page. If this RfA passes, I will be putting together a user page. Thanks for your time, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 would like to participate in WP:CSD and WP:AIV. Through my experience as a recent changes and new pages patroller, those are the two administrator areas in which I have the most experience. In 26 contributions to AIV, I have not once had a report rejected. Additionally, it has been some time since I have had a speedy tagged declined. Along with those two areas, I have numerous contributions to admin areas such as WP:ANI and WP:AE Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: While I am very proud of everything that I have done for the project, be it RC patrol or GA work, my best contributions to the project have been at September 11, 2001 attacks. That article had been, for some time, a problem area. The 9/11 article is a highly visible and highly controversial article, and it had fallen victim to a prolonged edit war over the inclusion of various conspiracy theories. I, along with a number of awesome editors (and the help of ArbCom), was able to stabilize and improve that article to GA-status. I hope to help bring that article to FA-status some day. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: The conflicts in which I have been involved have stemmed from my contributions to the aforementioned 9/11 article. In fact, I initiated the WP:ARB9/11 case. I have learned that the best way to deal with users with whom I disagree is to remain polite, civil, and blunt if necessary. If any problem behaviors arise, then it may be necessary to post to ANI (which I have done in the past). As previously mentioned, I have engaged in dispute resolution in the past and have found that experience to be very rewarding. Recently, I learned an invaluable lesson: when in a dispute with a user, it may be best not to engage that user in other areas of the project. I believe that my experience with conflicts will be invaluable in helping me become a solid administrator. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:MBisanz

4. Are you open to recall? Do your criteria include an outside party to judge recall requests, such as the clerks in mine or some other independent group like the crats?
A. While I am not enamored with the current process, I do wish to allow myself to be open for recall. My recall process would look something like this, which calls for a clerk to judge recall requests. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Pedro

5. Your very earliest edits showed a good understanding of wikipedia markup. Have you edited under a previous account or as an IP before creating this account?
A. No, I haven't. I was familiar with Wikipedia long before I began editing. When I decided to contribute, I made sure to further familiarize myself with the markup, although I would hardly characterize my understanding of markup at the time to be good :) Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from GlassCobra

6. Everyone's got moments that they haven't been proud of while doing work around here. Can you please name a specific incident that you feel you handled badly? I'm not trying to get you in trouble here, or give opposers any ammo, just trying to see how you work under pressure. If you would, please describe a bit also how you would have handled the incident now, and how you feel this has given you further preparation for handling the admin tools.
A. Yes, this MfD from about seven months ago. I did two things wrong: first, I never should have brought the page up for MfD in the first place. Second, I allowed some of my political feelings to slip into my MfD reasoning, which offended the user whose subpage I was bringing up for deletion. During the deletion discussion, however, I struck my personal feelings and was very polite in the face of extreme hostility. Now, I would never have MfD'd the page, and I don't let my politics interfere with my ability to engage in civil discussion. The latter is extremely helpful in preparing me for the admin tools. Also, I was able to maintain my cool when it would have been easy to lose it, which is another trait which I think will serve me well. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is usually Xeno's question, but I'll steal it this time around: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. In my mind, there are two acceptable solutions and one unacceptable solution. First, the unacceptable solution: I should not decline the unblock request because I originally blocked him. The two accpetable solutions are to grant the unblock request or leave it up to another admin to decide. I prefer the latter. I would rather have someone with a fresh perspective deciding the block's fate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

8. Do you consider this process of answering RfA questions to be stressful for you?
A: No, it's actually kind of fun. I don't mind being challenged a bit. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good attitude to have. Thank you. Keepscases (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from KnightLago

9. Very important and complicated question I am surprised nobody has asked...which brand of beer?
I strongly advise ICB to not answer this question. KnightLago is clearly a member of the shadowy Beer Snob Cabal; infamous for their gang-opposing all candidates that do not conform to their ridiculously high beer standards. Really, what does it matter which brand of beer he is? Beer's great any way you slice it. :P GlassCobra 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: It's ok GC, I can counter the Beer Snob Cabal with some beer snobbery of my own. The answer, of course, is Black 47 Stout from The Nutfield Brewing Company (Derry, New Hampshire). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. "You may notice that at the current time my user page redirects to my talk page. If this RfA passes, I will be putting together a user page." Why not now? What's special about admins that requires them to have a different userpage to us plebs? —Giggy 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: The only reason I would want to put together a user page is so I can identify myself as an administrator somewhere in my userspace. Sometimes users need admin help and I would like to identify myself as one who could provide such help. I could, I suppose, place a userbox on my talk page, but I'd hate to clutter up my talk page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Plasticup

11. Your first few edits are quite interesting. Given your experience over the last year, what are your thoughts on this edit?
A: It was the right call. Although none of us like the use of that particular word, I think that using the term n-word in its place is unencyclopedic and amounts to censorship. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I look at it again there is a WP:PUNC issue. So I'm not 100% ok with that edit. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking about the punctuation ;-) Plasticup T/C 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Winger84

12. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
A: Blocks do not and should not carry with them a lifetime sentence of distrust. Obviously, the "reasonable threshold" of time depends on the reason for the block and the nature of the user's behavior/disruption. Things such as incivility and WP:POINT might warrant about a three month threshold, whereas abusive sockpuppetry might require over a year. The same general principle applies to bans: the "reaonable threshold" relates to the severity of the user's behavior/disruption, although bans are usually the result of a pattern of poor behavior and abuse, so I suppose that it might take a little longer for the trust to return. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question

13. Your name pops up quite often, usually reverting something on my watchlist. Every time I see it I invariably begin humming Sunny Afternoon. Are you a Kinks fan, or did you prefer the Jimmy Buffett version, or is this actually a homage to former Toronto Blue Jays drink-vendor and fan-favorite Wayne McMahon? If it is the latter case, do you believe he would be worthy of a stub? And why not? — CharlotteWebb 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I like Jimmy Buffett's version better, though only because I've never heard The Kinks' version. Actually, I've never really heard Jimmy Buffett's version either, except for the 30 second sample I just played on the iTunes Store. In my heart, I know that this song is really about Wayne McMahon, although I'm not sure if he merits a stub. However, I've now been inspired to write WP:BEERVENDOR, which will hopefully become our notability criteria for stadium beer vendors. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear enough. I was actually curious which if any of these is the inspiration for your user-name. — CharlotteWebb 13:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. My inspiration is simply that I prefer beer, my favorite beverage, to be served ice cold, my favorite temperature. As an aside, the Wayne McMahons of the world don't receive enough credit. There are few things on earth better than drinking a cold beer at the ballpark. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - You seem like a good fellow who takes part in content writing and all that Wikipedia-related stuff; I see no problems in supporting you. Then again, it is 3am so my judgment may be a little clouded :) CL — 09:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Judging from looking through a bunch of contributions, this is a civil, cool-headed editor, who will make a good admin. From what I saw, he/she is eager to work on topic, shunning all personal attacks and who has a good track record on both maintenance, WikiGnomic activity and article writing/improving. And when he/she does make mistakes (we all make them), he seems willing to admit it immediately, not trying to make up excuses. The attitude I observed when looking through his/her contributions is the one I think an admin should have. If I have not overlooked something very grave, I'd say he/she will be a great addition to the mob-team SoWhy 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Don't think he'd abuse the tools. Does some nice work. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Frosty Malted Beverage Support. User is as cool-headed as the alcoholic concoction he is named after. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Been around for 11(?) months, has a reasonable edit count and activity level, managed to help bring 9/11 up to GA (which is v. impressive), has a clean block log (also impressive considering he works in controversial areas), candid answer to Q6 - etc etc, I think he'll make a good admin. naerii 10:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Strong mainspace work, reasonable question answers. MBisanz talk 11:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Any editors with concerns about a low number of edits from this candidate should have a look at their work on the 9/11 article. I'm impressed by the quality of the edits I see there. I concur that a userpage would be in order for an admin, and was going to comment before noting that the candidate beat me to it. As others have noted, this candidate's candor is refreshing. No objections. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support good all round editor - great mainspace work, talk contributions show a desire to collaborate and has also participated in project space. Will be just fine with the tools. nancy talk 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Accurate C:CSD and WP:AIV work indicate a need for the tools, and being unafraid to edit in heated areas is a big plus. Good answers to the questions. Lack of a userpage seems academic really. Pedro :  Chat  12:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Too bad I'm not 21. :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I see no reason not to. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Impressive work to September 11, 2001 attacks, as well in CSD tagging and AIV reporting. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support...
    I've never had
    The joy and fame
    Of an amusing
    Username
    But vandals will
    Be stunned to hear
    "You have been blocked
    "By Ice Cold Beer"
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Newyorkbrad...you are amazing. Best thing I've read this week. Soxπed93(blag) 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. That's awesome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I love it. Enigma message 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Great editor, experienced in nearly every area, and per Newyorkbrad. LittleMountain5 review! 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per answer to Q5. It shows real care in your approach, in general, and I have no reason to believe this would not translate into using the mop. Good luck! —CyclonenimT@lk? 13:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - definitely trusted, I think Ice Cold Beer will be a great admin. --Aude (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. liked answers, trust pedro and other support ratioanles Minds to logy for haiku, a simple "support" will have to do. Dlohcierekim 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Seems good. Good luck in this torture zone, :). --Meldshal42? 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - as long as you know what Beerware is ;). Besides that, great editor, nothing bad. Soxπed93(blag) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When the flames are fanned
    And we are on the verge of failure,
    We can feel confident that we can find
    Out in the crowd
    An Ice Cold Beer.
    Jumping onto the poem bandwagon ;). (I know, it sucks.) Soxπed93(blag) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Everything looks good. Good luck!! America69 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. user:Everybeer 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - looks good. Sceptre (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Ice Cold Beer / Has a clue / With the tools / Will be true / Burma-Shave (inspired by NewYorkBrad). — Athaenara ✉ 15:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Keepscases (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Looks good. Malinaccier (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Humble, good work, very civil. No problems and no negative interactions. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Seems to have excellent experience. Won't abuse either. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support works calmly in controversial articles. That's excellent practice for an admin. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per Protonk. --Cameron* 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per NYB. Wizardman 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No poetry in this one, sorry. No real problems that I can tell; answers to my questions were satisfactory. For question 7, ICB, you might consider usage of the ((2nd chance)) template; if the vandal can prove willingness to contribute constructively, they deserve another chance. Other than that, I wish you the best of luck, and please feel free to ask me if you have any questions, admin-related or otherwise. GlassCobra 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I haven't said no to an ice cold beer yet. Perhaps I need to go through a few more steps... Oh, and excellent editor. Communicative, knowledgeable, clueful and (this is awful Keeper, simply awful..) refreshing. Keeper ǀ 76 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support
    Frost forms on the glass.
    Through dispute resolution,
    Ice Cold Beer stays cool.
    Trusting the candidate will remain so with more tools, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Seems like a reliable editor. Meets my criteria. Also, I'm not convinced by the diffs shown in the oppose section. Good luck with the RfA. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support →Christian.И 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support who can oppose an ice cold beer, now where is User:Bourbon chaser? RMHED (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. + 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keegan (talk • contribs)
  38. Support - Nothing but good experiences with this user. Mastrchf (t/c) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Of course. Nothing but good experiences with this user, a wonderful editor, and plus has satisfactory answers to questions, Xeno's in particular. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. - Per SoWhy (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Not able to have the beer, but an ice cold hot chocolate would be nice. Acalamari 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Being an Arthur Rimbaud fan, I'll take an absinthe instead. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  
    There was some poetry here ^
    But alas, you have nothing to fear
    For I lost my train of thought
    After drinking some ice cold beer
    —Giggy 23:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - After digging his contribs, I think that he will be a great admin. macy (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Myself and the Beer Snob Cabal fully endorse this candidate. KnightLago (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support He has a finely tuned sense of why we're here. Easy call. RxS (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Here is an attempt at a limerick made by myself
    Ice Cold Beer is a jolly good fellow
    Who may or may not play the cello
    But I am quite certain
    That we won't be hurtin'
    For beer is indeed very mellow
    Captain panda 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 'Insert poem here'--LAAFan 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support — Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Per solid general reputation, answers to questions above, and your sampled reasoning in the diffs provided in Pumpkin Guy's oppose. Townlake (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support An experienced and friendly user. To be trusted for sure! Steven Walling (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Poem Support I support teh poemz oh and dis user for adminship:
    Why are you leaving that sweet and peaceful zone?
    When you were having such nice day,
    When you were doing so good and well.
    To you who dares to go into the unknown:
    I have only one more thing to say,
    Ice Cold Beer - Welcome to Hell.
    --Chet B. Long // talk // ark // 03:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, good editor, nice contributions and answers. Will make a fine admin. (and NYB's fine poem puts a nice frost on the mug..;) Dreadstar † 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Even though this is going to breeze through thanks to hundreds of pile on support votes, I'm supporting anyway... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, but I'm not a poet (and don't I know it). the wub "?!" 09:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, quite like that one. —CyclonenimT@lk? 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support to make up for the two poor-quality opposes. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with you...*jumps onto the newest RfA cliche bandwagon*
    The Wikipedia community will undoubtedly
    Jump upon your reasoning loudedly [ugh...]
    Basically, what I'm trying to say is, you're going to have some people question your rationale I successfully found an excuse to write an "RfA poem" CL — 09:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support See no reason to oppose. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - I looked at your edit summary over the past few months and the small specks of dirt I could come up with are nowhere near as uncivil as the worst I've seen. Looks like you have kept a very cool head in the face of some very difficult situations, including your great behavior in the 9/11 edit wars, and it looks like you will put the tools to good use. Keep it up! -Samuel Tan 13:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weak Support. Anyone who knows me knows I'm not the kind of guy to write poetry. I'm only able to give a weak support due to your somewhat lacking communication with other editors. Useight (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Reliable and sensible. Axl (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I can't do brilliant poetry, but after a review I see a reliable, civil, and helpful user that should use the tools well. Good luck! Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Great guy.--KojiDude (C) 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Knows his way around Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I thought I already did this. Oh well, here's my support. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support--MONGO 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Risker (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. support JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support
    Judging from hot vandal sprees
    I am sure we can all hold dear
    A nice Ice Cold Beer
    Good luck, and keep knowledge free  Marlith (Talk)  00:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Fellow New Englander, or at least one who drinks New England beer. Also, have seen good signal to noise ration from this account. Jehochman Talk 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support: Ice Cold Beer seems to have a in depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies and is experienced in the fields he has chosen to operate in. – Jerryteps 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, I like ice cold beer, and I would also like this person to become an admin. Looked through their contribs, nothing particularly scary or worrying in there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  72. Support -Dureo (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: What I'm looking for — Realist2 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per no readily apparent reason not to, as well as a strong answer to my optional question. --Winger84 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support one of the good guys, give him the mop. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I don't do pottery potery poetry, but this guy is chilled, and experienced, enough, to take on perpetual abuse with equanimity. No qualms here. --Rodhullandemu 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Non-poetic Support - why not? --T-rex 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support all self-noms. Anyone who wants adminship should automatically have it. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that really a good reason to support? --T-rex 14:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As good a reason to support than it is for some to oppose. Best not to argue with it! SoWhy 14:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Solid candidate. No problems here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - I see no reason not to. -- Freakatone Talk 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. See no issues here, and approve of a candidate who can inspire poetry. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Enthusiastic support per work on September 11, 2001 attacks‎. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 11:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per above, and the cool headedness displayed during the 9/11 conspiracy theory medcab case. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support When this is done, I'll give you the award for "most poems in an RfA". ≈ MindstormsKid 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support awful username though. Yanksox (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. dvdrw 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per answer to Q7. John Sloan (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Looks like a great candidate. Nice answers to questions. Midorihana みどりはな 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Particularly for the redux answer to Q.11, and the fact they started editing on my 48th birthday. And the usual seems trustworthy review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)(Jeepers, it is lucky for you that I loved your second response to Q.11 so much I skimped over Q.13..!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  90. Support A tip of a glass of cellar-temperature wine to Ice Cold Beer... - Merzbow (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Clearly dedicated to building an encyclopedia.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  22:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - looks like a good editor, and nice username ;)   jj137 (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support For the best read at an RfA ever.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. No negative history with me, and great name. Hopefully this can make WP:100 by the time it closes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Per past encounters, seeing his name on my vandalism patrol watchlist, and his comment here. Also, should have no problems with WP:COOL.  :-) Fleetflame 05:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support: Generally I expect more 'contributions' from RFA candidates, but some times I am willing to support those who are mature , civil and dedicated contributors. ( WTHN? ) . RFA answers are reasonable to satisfy me and many around . Oppose reasons not strong enough to convince me of opposing you. No reasons to believe that you will abuse to the tools. Good luck !! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support: No reason to oppose. Seems committed to WP:NPOV; see the parenthetical bit in this diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support — Doing good work here. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 11:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. -bottles-of-beer support so someone else can link to WP:100...  Frank  |  talk  18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Welcome to Hell and WP:100. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. I like beer --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Great! Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Biophys (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong, but bittersweet, Support Ah, wasn't it only last week when I welcomed the new user with the amusing name? And only yesterday when I gave him his first barnstar? And now he's at RFA... They grow up so fast! But in all seriousness, this is one truly awesome candidate and I would be remiss if I didn't comment here, even though this one can't possibly fail. Let me be the first to welcome you to the club, then, ICB. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, power thirst. Jehochman Talk 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What flavour? I love Godberry: King of the Juice. Sceptre (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Prospective admins, be ye warned
    Self-nominations are always scorned.
    But it's one lone nut who cannot hurt
    (Only joking, I love you Kurt)
    the wub "?!" 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not wubba me or I will wubba you... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    =) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per these weak arguments: [1] and [2]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain further? Those two votes seemed to follow both policy and consensus. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I spy with my little eye a conflict of interest. —CyclonenimT@lk? 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So-called "policy" is irrelevant, meaningless, and non-binding, and simply agreeing with an established consensus is hardly a virtue in itself, either--it's just groupthink. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So essentially you're calling for a candidate to have participated in an AfD with a vote which goes against everyone elses and succeeds? The candidate voted with consensus, yes, but that doesn't make his/her vote more or less credible. —CyclonenimT@lk? 18:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I'm saying; sorry if I wasn't perfectly clear. NuclearWarfare seemed to be indicating that agreeing with consensus was good in and of itself (if that's not what you were implying, I apologize), an assertion I dispute. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, I see what you mean. Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the clarification. —CyclonenimT@lk? 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see, Kurt. No, that's not what I meant at all. What I did mean is that Beer's votes seemed to follow policy, in my opinion. Since many other people had the same line of thinking as him, I assumed that his vote was the "right" one. Not right in that he should have voted that way, but right in the sense that he made a logical view, whose arguments were supported by everyone else. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace contributions indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Normally I never oppose, but these edits makes me extremely nevous. Meisfunny Gab How was I? 20:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and he recognized it. However, I don't know if it was a fluke or not, and if it means he will be quick to the ((block)) template as an admin. He is clearly going to succeed, and I don't have anything against him, but it concerns me still. He is still a fabulous editor. Meisfunny Gab How was I? 23:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At this time, I am unwilling to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Skinwalker (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, goody. Is this going to be the newest completely baseless oppose that we can expect to start seeing? I sure hope so...it'd be a shame if people actually evaluated the candidate. - auburnpilot talk 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral at the moment, the main article you work on is under GA reassessment. I would like to look into that a bit more before offering a support for your article building. Leaning to support ever so slightly. — Realist2 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Moving to support — Realist2 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Support per great disposition in tricky subjects, oppose per poor understanding of deletion criteria: none of these at all satisfy CSD G1 (Admins only). Regards, WilliamH (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing these out, William. For non-admins who are unable to view these links, ICB basically tagged articles that needed to be deleted (most as vandalism) but used G1, which is for nonsense. By common use of the word "nonsense" in real life usage, these articles could be considered nonsense. However, for our "nonsense criteria" listed under G1, these did not qualify. There were deleted under other criteria, though. I think this is a quick lesson for ICB to learn. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - most likely this RFA is going to pass, so all I'll say is please be more attentative when it comes to tagging and responding to tags, as such a level of discernment doesn't reflect well. Otherwise, good luck!. WilliamH (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, William. I'll be sure not to mix up my G1s and my G3s from now on. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (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.
Category