Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rune.welsh

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

Rune.welsh

final (128/0/0) ending 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nominator. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hah! Pre-official nomination support! —Nightstallion (?) 13:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support. excellent editor Abögarp 16:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. --TantalumTelluride 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. --
   ^{wat's sup} 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Leidiot 00:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I know from working with Rune on a project for Esperanza, that he knows how to react when things do not go as planned. That is something admins encounter often, and I believe he is more than capable of being able to handle all the new tools. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support No bad faith edits. Trustworthy, and has many edits all over...well rounded.
   T|@|ESP 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Yes.
    T+C) at 01:06 UTC (2006-03-16
    )
11. Support. of course
    emp | talk 01:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Support Excellent editor, cliche moment for me. Xoloz 01:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Lucky #13 Support Excellent editor. Moe ε 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support — Per NSLE :) deeptrivia (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... thought he was one! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support --Mmounties (Talk) 02:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support --
    e Ong 04:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Support, looks good to me. --Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Excellent editor (has loads and loads of minor edits) and vandalism reverter. --
    Andy123 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. Support per nom. --Rory096 06:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support — per all the above--Looper5920 06:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per etc and whatnot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, but how can he be Welsh if he's Mexican? JIP | Talk 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Excellent editor and I have see a strong well-balanced contribution in chemistry articles. --Bduke 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support.--Jusjih 07:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, I thought he already was an admin! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support; I already thought he was one™. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support echoing KnowledgeOfSelf's comments, top notch. --Alf ^melmac 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support' —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-16 08:48Z
32. Support, of course. -
    Mailer Diablo 08:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Support. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 09:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Happily support. I feel a bandwagon growing...
    Harro5 11:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support Ugur Basak 11:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per nomination. --CTSWyneken 12:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: ditto. --Bhadani 12:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support per nom - Aksi great 12:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Solid candidate. ProhibitOnions 12:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - I know his good work in FLC, he deserves this. Afonso Silva 13:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Ahonc (Talk) 13:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support without hesitation. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support seen this person around, very good user. I can't believe so many people beat me to the punch!--Alhutch 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support good work here. --Syrthiss 14:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. This editor shows outstanding depth and breadth of edits. youngamerican (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support yes, per nom. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support per everybody! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Hells yeah! Hamster Sandwich 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Indeed. SoLando (Talk) 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support, will be a fantastic admin -- Natalya 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. --Fang Aili 19:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support per above, keep up the good work! Prodego ^talk 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Strong support, he isn't already? Computerjoe's talk 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strong Esperanzial support! Great editor. haz _(user talk)^e 20:08, 16 March 2006
59. Support. You seriously haven't been nominated before? This is an example of how we all need to be on the lookout, we are missing lots of good candidates. - Taxman ^Talk 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Extreme "Sorry I'm late" support! Fantasmogorical user. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support per all above. Hiding talk 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support as per nom. --Tone 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Excellent user. Marskell 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support.    GUÐSÞEGN   – 
    X – 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
66. Support Excellent.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Indirect interactions and observations from afar have been good and reliable and thorough. No worries on length of service or activity and involvement and has model usage of edit summaries (oh come on, I'm just being trendy). Plus, with Titoxd as a nominator you'd need a seriously good reason not to. -Splash^talk 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Robert 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Seems like a good editor, good edit counts, 100% summaries, no conflicts, enjoy your mop. I bet this will hit WP:100 as well. Mike _{(T C)} 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support per nom. Let's go for
    Impart wisdom 06:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
72. Support. Good editor, engaged in important processes. - Tangotango 07:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. A good Wikipedian who will carry the mop and bucket proud. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Definitely someone worthy to be an admin. Brisvegas 09:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. All the right ingredients Deizio 15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support.
    Thunderbrand 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
77. Support Rama's Arrow 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Mo0[talk] 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support — It seems tome that he is the right guy for the job. _→AzaToth 21:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Pile on support Titoxd isn't Durin-level nomwise (yet?), but his noms are always good. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is that supposed to mean? :PTitoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Intended as a compliment... I suspect some of us (well, maybe only me?? I dunno...), on seeing a Durin nomination, feel comfy with supporting the nominee without even needing to do any research of their own. His noms are that well researched and his candidates that solid. Your candidate noms are almost that well researched. Helps clear it up? ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81. Support --Latinus 00:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Seems like a very well-rounded editor. Glad to support. Weatherman90 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Simply the best. --Jay(Reply) 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support without reservations - one of the kindest user user around. Earned my support long ago. Renata 02:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - this one's a no-brainer (um... the vote, that is...). Grutness...wha? 05:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 06:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support--MONGO 14:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support, He really deserves for sysop.
    T/C) 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
90. Support per everybody, great editor. Staxringold 16:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support! Sango123 (e) 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Good Luck! --mmeinhart 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support and then some. No question. ➨
    DVERS❞ 23:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
94. Support everything looks great. Happy 5,000th edit, by the way. Johntex\^talk 02:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Damn it. How come everyone's getting so much support votes nowadays? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support I disagree with Rune's attitude about how to handle conflicts, but that's pretty minor. Overall, a very good editor. JoshuaZ 04:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support... chalk this up to "you mean he isn't one already?" ...
    Talk?) 05:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
98. Support --Ixfd64 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support. 99-getter. Now lets see who gets
    100.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
100. Support 100! :D--Shanel 07:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - ahh Shanel beat me to 100! -- Tawker 07:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support When I saw him in the list of current RfA's, my jaw dropped to the ground. I can't believe you weren't one already, Rune!--
     ViolinGirl^♪ 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
103. sure, why not. DS 18:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Very good contributor, should already be an administrator. -M ^o P 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support, of course. Sarge Baldy 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. SupportRobert McClenon 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support per above --Masssiveego 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support, one of the best ×Meegs 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support per above -- Nephron 07:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
110. User:Go for it!/Vote Support BTW, that's a nice tool collection you have. --Go for it! 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support, forgot to vote days ago, kind of feels like voting again, well, enjoy. feydey 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support. Jonathunder 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Definite :) Joe I 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Suppport - very good user. --HappyCamper 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. I know Rune very well and I can stand up and say Rune Welsh RULES! Great user! GO FOR IT ,RUNE! —This
     unsigned comment was added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs
     ) .
117. Support. Might as well join the pile on. Also one of the few occasions that I can personally use the well known cliché- I thought you were...
     Petros471 16:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
118. Support. Another obviously good candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support Of course he should have the mop. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support per cliché. Alphax ^τεχ 06:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Wow, 122-to-zero has to be some kinda record. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     • Actually, according to
       User:Zzyzx11/RFA_nomination_records, it's third. Or second... I don't know exactly how it's calculated. Still, this one is close to being a record! ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
       ]
123. Support -- seems like a lovely person. Thumbelina 13:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support, that'll be a
     WP:100 then. Stifle 15:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
125. Support -- Agathoclea 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support Excellent contributions, no reason to oppose. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support, superstar -- Samir (the scope) 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support. the wub "?!" 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See Rune.welsh's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Statistics as of 06:04, Wednesday
  UTC) using Flcelloguy's Tool
  :

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I'd like to deal with the backlog in Copyright problems and Gmaxwell's live reports ([1] [2]) dealing with images for speedy deletion. I also keep an eye already at Administrator intervention against vandalism and would assist in blocking "certified" vandals and fixing up their mischief. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Raney nickel was the first article I started in Wikipedia and is now a Featured Article with the kind help of the folks from WikiProject Chemicals. I'm also particularly proud of biographies on relatively obscure individuals like Enrique Alciati, Camillo Agrippa and Murray Raney. I also enjoy very much drawing structures of chemical compounds and have even set up a small tutorial to assist other editors with this task. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Probably the most stressful conflict I've been involved with was a POV dispute in Andrés Manuel López Obrador with an anon user (it's in the article's talk page, for all to see). After much arguing against what I think were too many pro-POV additions by the anon, I asked other editors to look into this matter and left the article. I do believe it's better to stay away from matters once things get highly stressful. The encyclopedia is too big and wide to lose sleep over what are ultimately trivial matters. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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.