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

final (28/0/0) ending 13:02 14:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SoLando (talk · contribs) – Joel has been a Wikipedian since December 2003. In that time he has accumulated 5278 edits, of which 4410 are to the mainspace. His contributions have included an awful lot of vandal fighting, as well as exceptionally tedious tasks for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history in addition to numerous good quality contributions to articles. I can't support his endorsement of Slipknot (see his user page), but I can recommend him as a great potential Admin. Leithp (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. I'm also inclined to agree with you about Slipknot - blame birthdays ;-) SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Nominator Support. Obviously. Leithp (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per nom - good admin in the making. BD2412 T 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Good contributor who will benefit from having admin tools. Carbonite | Talk 15:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support will be good admin --rogerd 15:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Will be useful as an admin. deeptrivia (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Merovingian 17:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yeah. Will be good. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, amazingly meticulous and dedicated. Will make a great admin! —Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support of course.Gator (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support A quick look at last 300 edits looks good. Answers to questions are good. Therefore support is good. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 18:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. MEGA, ULTRA, Leithp and 10 others beat me to it, SUPPORT, In addition to being a meticulous and dedicated contributor and vandal fighter he's also a helluva cool dude. It is a honor to call him my friend and a pleasure to wholeheartedly support his elevation to adminship, for which he has clearly demonstrated his worthiness.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Geoff/Gsl 20:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. No reason not to support a fellow editor that is committed to this project. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Devoted and reliable editor. Also, the comparison between your internet connection and "a one-legged turtle on sleeping pills" (question 1) was the best I've heard in a while. :) Sango123 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Hahnchen 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Looks like a fine contributor.--MONGO 11:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 19:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. I've seen you around, doing good work. -- user:zanimum
22. Support per nom. the wub "?!" 11:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Martin 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support a very good and supportive editor -- Francs 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. El_C 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Dan100 (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support, HGB 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
28. Support, --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 10:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
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. My desire to help in the efforts to fight the seemingly endless scourge that is the vandal would be greatly benefited by rollback, as I have an internet connection roughly equivalenet to that of a one-legged turtle on sleeping pills. I regularly observe developments at the Admin Intervention noticeboard and do occasionaly warn users, so I'd like also use the blocking feature. I'd also be interestered in scrutinising Special:Newpages to find any nonsense articles warranting speedy deletion. And, finally, I'd be able to edit the protected anniversaries pages to correct mistakes and make minor refinements. See Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 30 for an example. SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

A. Well, I have written many lengthy articles, many of which unfortunately suffer in the grammar department (I'm so sorry to my English teachers!). My present pride and joy has most certainly been writing an article on Richard Geoffrey Pine-Coffin, a relatively obscure paratrooper officer during the Second World War. Right now, I have to say that my pet project to completely rewrite every article in Category:The King's Regiment is also something I'm quite proud of. SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (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 don't believe I have. If there have been conflicts that I've been embroiled in, they've likely been resolved quickly as I don't see confrontation as an appropriate way to solving issues and grievances. Yes, conflict will always be inevitable in such a vast community-based project like Wikipedia, but if there's a way to solve problems without getting all 'net Rambo, then that should be preferred. Adhering to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and m:Don't be a dick certainly can ensure that unnecessary conflict is avoided. SoLando (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.