Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Superm401

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

Superm401

final (45/0/3) ending 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept, and await the community's consideration.

Talk 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Support as nominator. --HappyCamper 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes please. —
   Cryptic (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Sure, seen him around and seems to make good contributions and has good sense. Frequent partial blanking of his talk page without archiving is a bit odd, but to each his own I guess. --W.marsh 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. I see I'm already late to the support party. I tend not to vote at all unless I've measured the candidate's contributions personally. Superm401 has demonstrated the ability to rise above the contention of the moment and to point the way towards harmonious resolution. That is what all of our Admins should be able to do. I'm lending my support to a candidate that has demonstrated that ability to my satisfaction. Superm401 (I've wondered what that means) will be an excellent Administrator, fair to a fault and a calming influence where there is disharmony. We need more Superm.... hydnjo talk 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. --TantalumTelluride 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Trustworthy editor with well-rounded wiki-career. Xoloz 04:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, we need more good admins, has a good history of positive contributions, and we always need more AcaDeca Admins. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support --
   恭喜发财) 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, edits in widespread namespaces; trusted editor, will make a trusted admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Spport, let's see if anyone finds the crap joke I just made. JIP | Talk 09:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - looks to be a good egg. --Whouk (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, looks well-experienced to me, good choice to join the mop mob. >Radiant< 12:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support, I've mainly seen this user in Harry Potter-related articles, where he shows plenty of good sense and a level head. Also displays a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix 12:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support
    t c 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Support --
    t||c|m 13:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Support All in 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. A very good understanding of WP, and close involvement with the community. Owen× ☎ 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support: --Bhadani 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, good contribution history. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:15Z
21. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Made a good impression at
    Ruud 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support. Good contributions. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support: Great work! —This user has left wikipedia 18:06 2006-02-01
25. Support, looks great to me. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support--Ugur Basak 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support --Jusjih 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support BlueGoose 07:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Merovingian {T C @} 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. --*drew 10:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, of course. -
    Mailer Diablo 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. He's not one already? Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. --Myles Long/cDc 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. —A 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. SuperBowl Sunday Support
    αίδεια* 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. Support. - Bobet 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. support. I would like to see a lot more edits in the main namespace. However, I am quite pleased with your edits as I see them.
    v ^ 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
42. support impressed by his work at the Help Desk abakharev 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Super Super Super Support! Nobody helped
    WP:MF more than this guy! -- WB 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support Would make a good admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Has done good work on
    WP:IFD, and watching for copyright vios. As an admin, would be better able to deal with such problems. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. Neutral Holy lack of edits in the main namspace Batman! (I mean as opposed to the total) Other than that, great. Pschemp | Talk 05:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. Relative lack of edits in main namespace (articles). However, nobody can complain of lack of community participation.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral as above. While it's great to see an editor so devoted to the Wikipedia's operation, contributions to actual articles are the only way it can grow and improve. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 72% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See
  Superm401's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool
  .
• I don't really see the need to create explicit archives when the MediaWiki software does it for us. However, I have just placed links to the versions prior to each clear for easier transparency.
  Talk 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to critisize. There's no real way you are supposed to handle your talk page organization, I just get used to everyone doing it the same way. --W.marsh 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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 will help monitor the admin backlogs, such as

Talk

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

A. I helped to create

Talk 16:21, 31 January 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. I haven't let any conflicts escalate too much, though I do get annoyed like most people. For example, I had a disagreement with

Talk 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]