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

FINAL (55/0/1); Scheduled to end 10:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Peel (talk · contribs) - I'd like to nominate Mike Peel for adminship. He has been active for a year (although his first edit goes way back to March 2005). Recently, he has become a dedicated template gnome and has undertaken the thankless but oh-so-useful task of categorizing templates and as a result is an active TfD participant. He has over 10000 edits: given the nature of his recent work, many are semi-automated (he runs User:Peelbot) but he has also contributed as a writer to articles in his field of expertise, such as Jodrell Bank Observatory, Lovell Telescope, Big Bang and is/was an active member of several WikiProjects. Other aspects of his work include FAC participation, peer review, AfD participation, etc. All in all, an experienced, responsible and thorough editor. The chances of him abusing the tools are nil and clearly he could use them in the template namespace. Pascal.Tesson 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I accept. Mike Peel 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to lend a hand at speedy deletion and protected page edit requests, as well as at templates for deletion. More generally, I'll help out at any backlogs that urgently need reducing. I'll also be contributing less to the admin backlogs - for example, there are a fair few protected templates that need categorization, which as an admin I can edit directly rather than having to make an edit request.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In article space, I've contributed most heavily to the Lovell Telescope article, which I plan on bringing up to featured article standard in the next few months, along with the other articles in the Jodrell Bank Observatory series. I've also helped to polish several articles that have subsequently become featured articles, the most recent of which has been Big Bang.

In portal space, I maintain Portal:Physics, which is now a featured portal. With wikiprojects, I help out at at the physics and astronomy wikiprojects, and have tagged several thousand articles for WikiProject Physics using AWB. This was important because it points out that the wikiproject exists to people that are editing physics articles, thus giving them somewhere that they can turn to for help with the content of the articles if necessary.

In template space, I have written a bunch of templates (the most advanced of which being Template:Infobox Planet), and as a result of trying to find other astronomy templates I am now heavily involved in the categorization of templates into subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates. As there are a lot of unused, or unnecessary templates, I have subsequently become rather active at templates for deletion. I believe that this is an important task as it makes template namespace a lot easier to navigate, meaning that other editors can locate templates to use and improve much more easily.

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: I tend not to get involved with too many conflicts, as the majority of the edits I make are not ones that people object to. Where I have disagreed with other editors, I do my best to get involved in a rational discussion with them to resolve the problem. For a current example of this, see User talk:Dodo64 - I nominated a category for deletion, and it was deleted with noone else contributing to the discussion. Dodo64 subsequently objected to the deletion, and after a discussion (during which a new direction for the use of the category emerged) it was decided that the category should be put on deletion review, where it is now.

• See Mike Peel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Mike Peel: Mike Peel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mike Peel before commenting.

Support

1. Excellent candidate, definitely deserves the tools. Sebi _[talk] 10:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support A fine editor with good experience. Lots of recent template work. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support -- seems like a good editor with a solid edit count and a long time of experience, and who also is skilled enought o run a bot. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Big Support. A really good candidate. Good use of edit summary and demonstrated using various means (such as bot, WikiProject, images, and maintaining a portal) that he knows how to use the tools when he becomes admin. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 10:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support A great candidate. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Have seen him around..a very Good candidate..will be an asset to the Admin community..hehe..--Cometstyles 11:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. He's made significant contributions to several articles. Looks like a good candidate. Majoreditor 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Solid contributions. Mike's experience is varied and sufficient, and I am positive he will be a good admin. —Anas ^talk? 13:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support A fine wikipedian. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 13:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support He is an awesome canditade, and a fine editor! Davis160 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Excellent contributions. You will make a fine sysop. J-stan ^Talk 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I see no problems with this application. (aeropagitica) 16:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Can't be denied. This should have happened long ago. Break out the mop. Ganfon 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support as nominator. Pascal.Tesson 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support- Excellent participation with WikiProjects and Templates. A little more vandal fighting wouldn't hurt, but the user will make a great admin nonetheless. Eddie 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong support excellent candidate with an excellent nominator. Acalamari 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I see no issues here, and I believe I am supporting a great admin-to-be. Jmlk17 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Seems fine.--†Sir James Paul† 18:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. No reason to not Support this man. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - Yes, trustworthy and well thought of. Will not misuse the tools. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - No concerns. H irohisat^{Talk Page} 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. No concerns of roguing. Good Wikiproject and template work, two things that I personally fail at. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. -- Y not? 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - A fine example. Hiberniantears 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Pascal nominated you. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support — A good candidate. Matthew 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support- per nom. AW 10:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Clearly an experienced and trusted Wikipedian who will be a good administrator. --Bduke 10:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Good contributions, good experience, good nomination. Will be a good admin.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Yes, Seems dedicated and trustworthy. Has plenty of experience across the namespaces. GDonato (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Good candidate, willing to help out at CAT:CSD (per answer to Q1). Walton^talk 13:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support No big deals. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. This is a support pile-off (you know, the opposite of a oppose pile-on) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Well suited for the tasks described in Q1.--Húsönd 00:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Looks fine.--MONGO 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Peacent 13:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Seems ideal ROGER ^TALK 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Having interacted with this editor, I feel comfortable that he would behave well as an administrator. EdJohnston 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - All of my interactions with this editor have been quite pleasant; I have zero fear he will abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - Pretty decent editor. Hydrogen Iodide 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Good editorPolitics rule 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - I've been impressed with Mike everytime I've come accross him - he will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Great contributions and qualifications, no question. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Should make a good admin. Davewild 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Solid contributions to the encyclopedia and methodical approach suggests good admin material. Espresso Addict 02:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. I've had good experiences. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. No concerns with this user at this time. Nick 00:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Bucketsofg 13:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Has done a lot of great work as an editor, and all indications are that he'll be a great admin as well. -- MisterHand 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. A good contributor who I have no reason to think will not make a good admin. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support; likely to be an excellent admin; I see no problems here. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support yes. ~ Infrangible 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - Per above. Great edits, good experience. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

1. neutral low non-AWB edit count. Otherwise appears to be good candidate; I think waiting for a few months would have been better. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well now this is just plain silly. What does low non-AWB count even meant? His recent contributions have been heavily AWB but look at his first 500 contributions in the mainspace. Did you look at his portal edits? Did you look at his contributions to Lovell Telescope? Mike has got thousands of quality non-AWB edits. Pascal.Tesson 11:09, 8 July 2007 (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.