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

Soap[edit]

Final (181/0/0); Closed as successful by xeno at 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Soap (talk · contribs) – I'm especially pleased to nominate Soap for adminship, after months and months of deliberations on his part and hounding on my part. I've known him for at least a year or two, and while my participation on Wikipedia is gradually winding down, his activity has remained consistent and steady. I feel Soap is, in many ways, already an administrator, familiar with the ways of the wiki and well-versed in its history, both social and technical. In particular, his knowledge of even the most obscure features has proven extremely helpful in the past. Soap is one of only six non-admins (including at least two former admins) entrusted with the powerful ability to manage the Edit filter. Thus, in essence, he already has indirect access to some of the sysop tools.

Soap's contributions are also remarkably similar to that of the most experienced administrators of the project, ranging from reverting vandalism to maintaining XfDs and SPI cases. Worthy of note is his long-term presence at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, where his efforts to help new and confused users have earned widespread recognition. Statistically, he has 13,000 edits since January 2006. He regularly tags pages for deletion, reports problematic users, and partakes in community discussions; I turn to him daily for the latest updates on things like flaggedrevs. While not a prolific content creator, he has started more than a few respectable stubs. Granting Soap the sysop bit would, I feel, be a major achievement by the RfA system. Juliancolton (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Soap— 13:05, 9 June 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will continue working in the areas I work in today: the edit filter and its associated false positives page, the various title blacklists, WP:UAA, and WP:AIV. I also plan to answer protected edit requests, as this is similar to answering many of the false positives reports, although I realize that articles that are full-protected are usually so because the content is under dispute, and that I should never make an edit that does not have consensus on the article's talk page. I would like to work at WP:SPI as well, though my involvement there so far has been minimal, and I will start slowly and tread carefully.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’m best known for my edit filter modifications, which make it harder for vandals to get through and easier for us to track them. I have also done quite a few fixes to eliminate false positives because the edit filter sometimes frustrates legitimate editors as well. I’ve also done similar work at the Title blacklist and would be able to help by editing the blacklist directly and performing page moves denied by the blacklist. (Although, as above, I know better than to make a controversial edit without consensus, it seems that the majority of page moves and creations denied by the blacklist are obvious false positives, as can be seen by browsing MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist and its archives.) I have presented evidence in various sockpuppetry investigations, both to exonerate innocent parties and to convict guilty ones.
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: Most of what I’d call conflicts are fairly one-sided anti-vandalism efforts; however, I have been involved in content disputes, mostly revolving around differing interpretations of the WP:V guidelines. Often, content disputes can be solved merely by engaging in discussion with the involved editors (example here). The kind of conflict that is most stressful to me is when an editor inserts content that I know to be false but hides behind claims that their information is verified only in paper sources, whether the sources exist or not. When I see claims cited to a source that I believe is fabricated, I do my best to make my case for it (example here), and if the editor uses a real source that I can't access I do my best find someone who has access to that source to verify it (example here, although since my communications were mostly through email it isn't clear what steps I took). This is a long-running problem, and I realize that adminship is not a magic solution to the problems of verification, so I won't change my methods of dealing with these types of problems. However I feel that some people believe that administrators really do have a magical solution and will come to me in the belief that I am a final authority. If I find myself drawn into a content dispute that I myself can do little to resolve, I will ensure that the conflict is resolved, if necessary by devolving the dispute to another area such as the reliable sources noticeboard.
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
4. Can vandals be rehabilitated?
A: Definitely. We have a userbox that identifies reformed vandals, and I'm sure that there are quite a few long term editors who could identify themselves as reformed vandals but don't want to advertise their past because it might make them a target for suspicion even today. But the will to reform really has to come from the person himself; I don't believe that simply offering rewards for good behavior can, in itself, turn a bad editor into a good one; in most cases it would only convince them that they can game the system.
5. Define when it is appropriate to IAR as you would to a new user
A: I think that the one-sentence definition on the WP:IAR page itself is the best way to summarize the meaning of the rule and when to use it. To someone who feels that the page doesn't tell them much, I would say that it's written that way because IAR cases need to be examined individually, with full attention given to the present situation. Only by addressing the individual problem can we determine whether the rule being questioned really is standing in the way of productive editing. Hopefully that would make it clear that IAR is not a license to ignore rules just to advance one's own agenda; like everything else, an IAR-based edit has to achieve consensus if questioned.
Additional optional question from Jclemens
6. Please expand on #2, specifically with respect to encyclopedia content: What articles have you created or improved? Have you contributed to any evaluated content, such as a DYK, GA, or featured content?
A: Writing, in various aspects, is one of my weakest points. I often seem to have difficulty choosing the right words to make something easy to read without sounding repetitive. I have sometimes worked with others on articles that were reviewed and achieved DYK or GA status shortly afterward, but my edits were always minor fixes, usually related to adding alt-text, fixing templates, or image alignment problems, rather than working with the main content. And even from that I've moved away to some extent and towards greater focus on the edit filter and other anti-vandalism aspects of Wikipedia, where I feel I can make better use of my time. If I had unlimited time to contribute to mainspace only, I feel it would be best for me to spend that time fact-checking existing articles to make sure everything is verifiable, since while I am capable of creating new articles from redlinks when the need arises, I feel that it isn't the best use of my time.
Additional question from Leaky Caldron
7. Where certain high net worth editors are concerned, a number of Admins. show a flagrant disregard for the WP:Civility policy & associated blocking policy. This contributes to such editors attaining a cult status, further distancing them from effective community sanctions. Please provide your view on this premise.
A: I don't believe that being a long-standing editor or administrator should ever earn someone the right to violate civility guidelines; merely doing more good than harm does not entitle someone to do more harm. However, my experience has been that that the civility guidelines really do apply to everyone, as I have seen many long-term contributors blocked, in some cases indefinitely, for harassing other editors. If they are more likely to be unblocked after receiving such a block, it may be in part be because editors who have been around for years are generally more persistent, having been around for so long, and less likely to be intimidated by a block than the average new editor is. However, if you are right that there is an established pattern of "admired" users violating rules that would get most others blocked, I would agree that it is a problem and should be solved by any means possible.
Additional questions from Ironholds (talk)
8. Do you believe that the notability guidelines are to be strongly followed, and that they are based on verifiability? Do you believe verifiability is an essential element of keeping an article around?
A: In general, the answer to those questions is "yes, yes, yes". There are some instances in which an article containing only unreferenced statements can be reduced to a stub instead of deleted: for example, species of animals and plants. However, even the species has to be listed in a zoological catalog, which must be a reliable source, so it could be said that even these examples are not exceptions to the notability guidelines, they just follow it somewhat differently than, say, BLPs, where a simple statement that a person exists would not likely carry it through an AfD.
9. Do you believe newspapers, such as the New York Times and similar, are reliable sources?
A: They can be. But the New York Times, like most newspapers, has opinion columns and editorials which are not reliable sources of fact. Also, sometimes news reports are based on incorrect or incomplete information. For example, during the NATO involvement in Kosovo, many TV stations reported that the US military was planning to airlift the refugees to the island of Guam, an unusual (though admittedly not impossible) choice of destination for refugees from a European country. On April 5, 1999, the New York Times ran a story stating that "either Guam or Guantanamo Bay" would be the destination. It turned out to be Guantanamo Bay, and the New York Times, along with nearly every other news source, ran an updated story shortly thereafter. While the NYT were never wrong even in the original story, I use this as an example of a story where the known facts changed quickly, and even reliable sources can become unreliable. Of course there are other examples, including front page headlines. I would assume that all of the erroneous front-page headlines in that Wikipedia article were corrected shortly afterwards, and would hope that even errors that weren't in front-page headlines were also corrected, but, particularly in the cases where old archives are being searched, I would not assume that a questionable claim can be assumed true simply because it appears in a newspaper and no retraction of the claim can be found. Additionally, I would say that whenever one reliable source contradicts another, both of them are thrown into doubt, and the claims being referenced should be looked at more closely.
Additional question from Richwales (talk)
10. Following up on #5: What would you do if it's clear that one overly contentious editor is forcing an article in a certain direction, reverting other people's work (including their sources) via excessively narrow interpretations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and defying a clear consensus on the grounds that policies (as he alone truly understands them) cannot be overridden by consensus? Is this a place to invoke WP:IAR in defence of the spirit (if perhaps not the letter) of the rules? And if so, what if the combative editor then accuses you of abusing IAR to whitewash your own disregard for the rules?
A: Well, I would say that it isn't an example of IAR if what's being addressed is not a rule to begin with. If I were in such a situation I would avoid using that acronym, because I think that it would put my argument in a weak position, essentially admitting that he's correct, when what I should be doing is showing him that he's the one who's ignoring the rules by making them out to be stricter than they really are.
Additional question from 7 (talk)
11. Please give us (your own summary) of the mission of the Hyphen Luddite group which you joined. Are there other MOS—smashing ideas which you think would improve Wikipedia?
A: I wanted to try to come up with something funnier than the text that's already on the category description but I think Durova did that better than I could. So, a (probably disappointingly) serious answer: Although I know how to type the em and en dashes on my keyboard, I know that a lot of other people don't, and would think it unnecessary to do so in any case, which can lead to confusion when someone links to an article that doesn't have a redirect yet, and may not realize the error particularly since the hyphen and the en dash look nearly identical on fixed-width fonts. Although a bot exists to make these redirects, it doesn't always get there quickly: for example the redirect Barryville-Shohola Bridge was only created two weeks ago, even though the article with the proper title Barryville–Shohola Bridge was created in March 2009. In a gesture of cooperation, though, I changed my sig, which had long had a sequence of two hyphens --, to one with em dashes shortly after I added the Hyphen Luddites category to my userpage. As for other MOS rules, I can't think of any, though since the MOS goes beyond just how to type and into how to write, I'm sure there's a lot of room for future debate.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Absolutely the strongest support I could think of. I have interacted with Soap for a few months now, and he has given me good advice when I was a newbie. Soap has done some great around the 'pedia, including his work at WP:UAA and WP:SPI, as well as helping the newbies, including me. Soap is an excellent choice for the mop, and Wikipedia will certainly benefit from it. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stronger than my Tide rolls' RFA support You've been a guideing force for me here and you have proven yourself capable of haveing the tools. (I'm adding myself back in the spot that I was at first prior to Soap removeing it due to the fact that this RFA had not officially begun. If anyone opposes this just add me into mumber 36)--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support without hesitation. I've seen this candidate's good work in many places. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beat the nom support I thought he was an admin. FinalRapture - † ☪ 13:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support – not much more to add, as it is already stated above and in the nom. Good luck! Airplaneman ✈ 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beat-the-nom Strongest possible support Absolutely. What good is the mop and bucket without Soap? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. OK folks, enough of your beating-the-nom fun! I support, natrually. Juliancolton (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. About @#!*% time. I would have put stronger words, but even with WP:UNCENSORED it is not, as they say, "couth" to say exactly how I feel. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support responsible editor who will make a good addition. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Soap cleans things up!  7  14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support An excellent choice. Immunize (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - agree, great name for an admin. This is a person who has done much to improve the Wiki, and my best wishes go with this !vote. Jusdafax 14:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Long overdue. Soap tends to be a voice of reason in discussions and is very experienced with the ways of the wiki. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. Jafeluv (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with the sincere hope this makes it to WP:200.--~TPW 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably make WP:100 without a doubt! ;-) ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Nothing to say other than that he's fit for adminship. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Without a doubt fit to be an admin. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Of course. —fetch·comms 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support TNXMan 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - took you long enough! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. For only the second or third time ever, I'm going to declare my strongest possible support. Many months back when I first came across Soap, I genuinely believed he was an admin (yes, yes, I know it's a cliché, but it's true!) and, several months later when I installed popups, I was genuinely shocked to discover that he'd never even requested it! Since then, I've come across Soap on a regular basis, even more so since getting my own mop. I've found his technical expertise with edit filters and the mediawiki namespace invaluable and have always appreciated his input when we happen to cross paths. In many ways, he effectively is an admin already, so I think the project would greatly benefit from Soap being able to press the buttons himself- he knows how to use the mop better than many admins. I'm proud to be able to claim a small part of the blame for getting him to finally stand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Very good candidate. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Very strong support — not sure if I've even met him. I don't think I've met him. But that's a name which anybody who's even slightly into Wikipedia would know (...or at least, I sure hope they know what soap is), simply because he's so proactive in contributing to this site. I'm shocked to see he's not already an admin — don't get me wrong, I always knew he wasn't, but I'm still shocked that it took so long for this RfA to happen (and this is his first time?). Strongly support, let's see how far up WP:100 this will go! :) Master&Expert (Talk) 17:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. A mop, a bucket, and a little bit of Soap, and we'll have a spic-n-span Wikipedia! -- Ϫ 17:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support From what I've seen here, Soap appears to be a great candidate for the tools and would certainly help out wikipedia by having them. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support. Excellent candidate, I thought you already had the mop. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Good contributions. A fine candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Katerenka (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support Soap should have been an admin long ago. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support - Every-time i have come across Soap he has been very helpful and kind.Jason Rees (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Very happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An addendum to my support: a number of other contributors have commented on the candidate's helpfulness to other editors. I echo those comments, having benefited from Soap's help myself: [1] Taking the time to give unsolicited help to other editors is an excellent - and actually quite rare - quality for an admin.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Cliché, I know, but I thought he was one already. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good answers, I see the user around alot, would be a good admin. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Of course. An exceptionally helpful, clueful, compassionate, and genuinely personable contributor who would make an excellent administrator. ceranthor 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Thought he was one already. Dave (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak Support I really appreciate your stepping up to investigate my erroneous block (because of the actions of a different "Keepscases" on a different wiki), but next time you face a situation like that, please be more diligent...it really should have been clear it wasn't me. I am not trying to be hard on you; you will be a good admin. Keepscases (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Super soapy support! Yes, yes, yes! Great user. Heck, if I could i'd give him two mops.Pilif12p's Sock :  Yo  20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Seems like a solid addition to the admin team. Jarkeld (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good and solid. I was impressed by the removal of preemptive !votes, shows a level head. – B.hotep •talk• 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Thought you were one already. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I'm sure you'll be level-headed as a sysop. -- Mentifisto 21:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Pleased to support. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oh, definitely. I think that this has a good shot at being on WP:200. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Soap has a clean enough record for me! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support per nominator. Most definitely. ((Sonia|ping|enlist)) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I don't usually vote on people I don't know but reading about Soap, I am particularly impressed and can see how the tools would benefit him. A great candidate.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Someone who cleans the edit filter so I don't have to. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - no hesitation at all that this will be a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support You weren't one before? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Good contributions, and will make a great administrator. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support without reservations. Shimeru 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Fo sho. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Great contributions, especially in the edit filter areas, which is mostly where I've seen this impressive user's work! Brambleclawx 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. A very easy decision -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Duh. _Tommy2010[message] 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – Definitely. Good answers to the questions posed. A net positive to the project. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. To be honest, i thought he already was an admin. Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support It is odor free Soap right? Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 01:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - A solid, long-term contributor who has found his own niche on WP. This editor knows his strong points, and so despite the lack of high-level content work, I think that WP could only be improved with a mop in his hands. Dana boomer (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Demonstrably an excellent editor. --PinkBull 02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Duh. Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Hesitant support.... Tim1357 talk 03:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just kidding! 300,000% support! Tim1357 talk 03:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Speedy support nom to bureaucrat. - RoyBoy 03:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I thought you were already an admin. BejinhanTalk 03:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I have no concerns regarding Soap's candidacy and am happy to support this RFA. Sarah 03:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support —Aaroncrick TALK 04:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I thought he was an admin already support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support ThemFromSpace 05:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Can't think of any reason why not. And after all, things do get cleaner if you use soap with your mop. ;-) Regards SoWhy 06:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Sounds like a good idea to me. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. On-a-rope support. The areas in which this editor has been working would, I'm sure, have revealed any problems with his/her judgement and attitude; there seem to be no concerns on those areas so I have no concerns about adminship. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. S-s-s-s-support - Amazing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support already. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Seems ideally suited and qualified. - Begoon (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support wholeheartedly, as he left nothing but positive impressions on me. Though i do regret that i lose the ability to grin thinking "Well, its properly soaped up, now to mop it out of the door" as i often did while handling your reports. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Since @#!*% when are you not an admin?  f o x  10:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support A checkthrough his contributions confirmed me that we can trust him with the tools. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Well geez, it's about time you ran... (X! · talk)  · @501  ·  11:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Soap is admittedly an excellent candidate. Trusted user. No problems. Minimac (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Would it be unheard of to invoke WP:SNOWBALL and close this as a successful RfA now, or do we really need for someone to post a token "oppose" !vote? I don't remember a previous RfA that got so many "support" !votes so fast... --Alan (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. I've been the recipient of this editor's assistance several times. They are always patient and their advice/feedback has always been on point. Their contribution would be greatly enhanced with the extra tools. Tiderolls 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Per WP:Right now! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 204° 31' 30" NET 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, Very impressive track record. Trusted user. Gets my support. -- Marek.69 talk 14:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Of course yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Bubbly SupportSPhilbrickT 15:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support-on-a-rope. Excellent candidate; helpful, has clue, ticks all the boxes. Glad you've decided to go for it; best of luck, soap. Chzz  ►  15:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I am taking time out of playing this to vote in support. So with that said, Soap will be an awesome adminastrator.wiooiw (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Of course! —DoRD (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Soap has been doing a great (and often thankless) work as an Edit Filter manager. Since the end of the last year, he has often answered to the majority of reports on the false positives noticeboard. I think he will a great administrator. Ruslik_Zero 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support absolutely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Good candidate. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Another specialist (edit filter management) who is well-rounded, clueful and has shown a willingness to perform what are often thankless tasks--Hokeman (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. A good candidate with experience in areas where admin tools would be beneficial, so I'm happy to add another count towards the soon-to-be WP:100 support. --RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, great work with the edit filter. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - obviously great editor, a wide range of valued contributions to the project. And yes, thought he was one already. ~ mazca talk 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - is more than capable :) Orphan Wiki 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. More soap for all of us. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - odd user page, but otherwise he looks fine. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Great contributor who would likely make a great administrator. Reach Out to the Truth 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support No doubt about it. :) Theleftorium (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Soap... soap... what is soap? — ξxplicit 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support – Glad to add my support; I'm another of the confused ones who had thought he already was an admin. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support I honestly thought Soap was already an admin. An obvious choice, a great candidate. It's about time.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per Gordonrox24 PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Great user, feels he finally needs adminship. Z̋̿̐̓͜҉̶̟̺̪͍͔̰̯̥̹̬͟algo Zalgo (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support I see no major issues. --Bsadowski1 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Out of retirement to strong support. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. You have, at amazing speed, surpassed my very hard requirements for an AUTOMATIC SUPPORT (Those requirements being, having over 100 supports and NEVER - even temporarily - having any opposes or neutrals.) -WarthogDemon 01:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion related to this support has been moved to the talk page
  110. Extremely strong support Willking1979 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Oh, go on then. Fences&Windows 01:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Quick review of the past few thousand contributions proves very impressive. Look forward to working with you as an admin in the future! Shouldn't WP:SNOW apply for RfAs that clearly aren't going to fail as well?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 02:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Soapport — See? It's no big deal. And no worries. Jack Merridew 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Pile-on support Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Snow support. Soap has definitely done a great job as an edit filter manager. After a quick review of his contributions, I believe that he is clearly well qualified for the admin tools. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. So Much Support It can't be measured A brilliant Candidate very worthy of the "Mop and Bucket" Floul1 | My Talkpage | Vandalise Here 11:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Soap has proven to be a friendly, patient, and knowledgeable editor. I have no concerns regarding handing them the mop and bucket.--Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. Clichéd "I thought there were an admin already." Awesome job. :) Avicennasis @ 16:03, 29 Sivan 5770 / 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  119. Support: per Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested: (a) Soap's all over it, and (b) I'm scared that if I tried to oppose an edit filter would stop me ;-) TFOWR 16:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - Just in case you need a tie breaker ! Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Appears well qualified for the extra tools.—Sandahl (♀) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Well, reading this over, there seem to be an unusually large number of bad puns on the word "soap". So I'm just going to say that it is always gratifying when there is an absence of drama from this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Give him the mop, he already has the soap. At this rate, this way well be a record breaking vote Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support I'm pretty sure all that be said has already been said for this candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derild4921 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC) forgot to sign Derild4921 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Soap's record and esp. answers to the above questions are excellent. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - I've done my share of pushing Soap to run. I believe he will be a fine admin. J.delanoygabsadds 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Valuable worker...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - No concerns whatsoever.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Of course, and gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. Fully qualified, no concerns. It appears that any objections to Soap have come out in the wash. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  132. So i herd u liek abminchip No reason not to inflict the candidate with the mop and bucket. Have fun. Someoneanother 03:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Not a prolific content editor, t'is true, but very consistent work on everything a janitor can do without the tools, including a lot of RfA's! My !vote at this stage is probably superfluous.--Kudpung (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Looks like a record breaking Rfa. This guy has used his soap well and now it's time for him to make a stand and go on the Wikipedia front line. Oozetrigger (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User was created about half an hour before this vote. ((Sonia|ping|enlist)) 10:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully it's just an experienced IP editor who has finally found a need to register an account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed !vote of banned/blocked user --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support trusted, knowledgeable, experienced, good-smelling—what's not to like? Mm40 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. --High Contrast (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Speedy Support if such a thing exists. Rohedin TALK 22:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. Good work with false positives. Cenarium (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  140. SupportQuarl (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Uh, yeah. — The Earwig (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support deleted contribs look good - I think a mop is in order. ϢereSpielChequers 06:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Why not? Hive001 contact 08:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support - No reason I can think of not to hand Soap the mop. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Soap will never wash away my tears.   pablohablo. 16:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Soap + mop = clean floors? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Essential support, because at this percentage every !vote counts. :/ It may be a cliche, but it's true: I thought Soap was already an admin. Finding out I was wrong, I see no point not to remedy that expeditiously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support: Met this person only a few weeks ago on IRC, but has a great history. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 19:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support – No exception here. Heymid (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support – Wandering Courier (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - Unomi (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support: Pile-on support. Seen nothing but good work. No concerns here. Elockid (Talk) 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - great work, terrific community trust. Can we make it to 200? PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Woah! I thought this user was already an admin because of his (or her) contributions! --Hadger 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support soap it, wash it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  157. I was going to oppose based on the fact that my irc client had issues with tab completing his nick, but then decided there were greater things at stake. huge net benefit. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. See no reason to think Soap will misuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. You always beat me to handling the false positive reports for the edit filter, but I suppose I can let that slide. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support, though I wonder if there's any point in supporting: with already 159 supports and no (real) opposes I think I can guess how this one will go! I have looked at a sample of Soap's edits, and I have seen a very thoughtful and constructive editor, who should make a first rate administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support, no reason not to--Jac16888Talk 10:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support I love this candidate. I want to have their babies. Polargeo (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support, fine admin material Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Stephen 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support This is someone who, by all appearances, could have become an admin a long time ago. I'm a huge proponent of WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I see no evidence that he would misuse the tools, therefore support. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Sole Soul (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - I have done a bit of reading by putting the candidate against my RfA criteria, and like the above, I have come to the conclusion of supporting. CT Cooper (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. I see nothing but good work and I believe the tools will be well-handled. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support. duh. liquidluck✽talk 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Not much that I can add that hasn't already been said above or made a pun of. Trustworthy admin that will finally have the bit flipped. Good wishs Soap Calmer Waters 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Strong support Excellent editor who will make an equally excellent admin. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support (not thast you need it!) Of coure. Entirely positive previous interaction and no chance of tool misuse. Pedro :  Chat  06:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  173.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Soap. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Jujutacular T · C 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  175. He isn't one already? Sceptre (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Might as well pile on. Soap is a great editor, and I believe he'll make a fine admin. Almost to 200! :) LittleMountain5 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Pile on support, good luck Soap! GlassCobra 05:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support I'm satisfied with answers to the questions, and I think this will be a responsible admin. Richwales (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  179. A very strong candidate working in an important area. No-brainer support. EyeSerenetalk 08:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  180. 3¢ for common sense to stand on your soapbox because you realised there is no dash key on my keyboard. However you then turned coat and added dashes to your signature. :S Realising it is a petty reason to oppose and recognising i have the chance to make it 180 if not 200 i am Viva la H.U.R.L.ing my support your way with this vote. delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Have known this guy in the past and I trust him with the tools. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose - Is it a true RFA without at least 1? GtstrickyTalk or C 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Tim1357 talk 02:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it WAS an RfA with no opposes ;) Pilif12p :  Yo  02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point :) GtstrickyTalk or C 02:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could argue that Soap's edits to the Soap article is a serious conflict of interest! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
</waiting for someone to oppose to get attention then retract it>. — CIS (talk | stalk) 02:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curse you all for giving me a heart attack. Nobody could possibly oppose Soap :P —fetch·comms 03:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your edit summary was just "+". So I thought, "What. the. hell. Fetchcomms is opposing Soap?". I probably would have trouted you. :P ((Sonia|ping|enlist)) 03:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am glad someone opposed even if only for a little while. This kind of thing (unopposed RfA) could go to an editors head...  :) -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral: I've noticed User:Soap's clean record, and this RfA looks like a real wash. For once we don't have a candidate who's wet behind the ears...what a ray of sunlight. With the extreme tide of support, this should have no issues, but I'm a little more dirty apparently. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Above user banned from all projects for overuse of bad puns--Jac16888Talk 10:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was no reason to scrub his vote, though. ~ mazca talk 17:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't--Jac16888Talk 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vote was prescrubbed, presumably like the candidate. –xenotalk 17:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy 'nough ~ mazca talk 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
You thought this <small> chain ended here? Your dead wrong. Rohedin TALK 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you're all sticking with the same level of small. I wonder how small this can go? Hmmmm, would be interesting to find out--Jac16888Talk 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:200. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a flood of supports in the next 16 hours, that's not very likely. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Americanism may do. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone already suggested closing under WP:Right now!... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2010 (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