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

Final (83/0/2); Closed as successful by Avi (talk) at 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Ended Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:49:46 (UTC)[reply]

Michig (talk · contribs) – I bring forward to the community Michig. His track record on Wikipedia has been nothing short of exemplary. He's been here for over 5 years and well over 20,000 edits to his name, including over 15,000 of them in the mainspace. He has also started over 370 new articles and helps improves salvageable articles that have been proposed for deletion, especially in his specialty which is music. Michig has always given effort to help others out and be receptive to others commentary, sometimes when situations tend to get heated. He understands what types of edits are constructive or not, which ones are spam or not, and edits that may be construed as original research or otherwise POV-pushing.

Especially for those who more favor admin candidates who should be content creators and contributors, I cannot think of a better qualified candidate that fits that type than Michig, and I'm honored to bring him here for consideration for adminship. –MuZemike 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to MuZemike.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: The obvious areas for me to start in are those in which I have needed to request administrator assistance in the past, specifically requests for page protection, intervention against vandalism, sockpuppet investigations, and the edit-warring noticeboard, as well as those where I already spend a lot of time but could do more with the admin tools. I regularly look through C:CSD for articles that have been incorrectly speedy-tagged or which I feel are salvageable, and the vast majority are clear candidates for speedy deletion, so I would be happy to help clear the backlog there. If made aware of any other areas where there is a backlog or a need for more admin attention I would be happy to look at those. There are undoubtedly a lot of areas where as a current non-admin I would have a lot to learn, so I would tackle those with great caution and would take advice from more experienced admins.

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

A: Since I started contributing to this project my main area has been content work. I think I've made a significant contribution to the coverage of reggae and Jamaican music here over the years, as well as creating and expanding many articles on artists and musicians, often those that existed pre-web and where sources are harder to come by. I've also done a lot of work on IT-related articles (though I generally like to get away from the day job here) and on towns and villages in the area where I live, which has given me an opportunity to take and contribute some photos, and to learn a lot of things I didn't know - editing and researching for articles is a great way of learning, and I've learned an awful lot by creating and improving articles. In discussions on guidelines, deletion, etc., I always try to look at the bigger picture and consider what would be best for a project with the aim (still) of building an encyclopedia, and I believe my contributions particularly at AFD have had a significant impact on improving the project.

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 can't think of any major editing conflicts. I've come across a lot of vandals, POV-pushers, and people who have no respect for consensus, but this is a big project and this has to be expected. While often annoying, I try not to let these things cause me too much stress. I'm fully aware of WP:3RR and I will generally go to a talk page to resolve differences of opinion rather than reverting more than once. It usually works. Discussing why someone made an edit often leads to a compromise. Differences of opinion are common in areas such as AFD, but I find it's best to put your view across, and then let the community reach a consensus, and in the vast majority of cases, the right outcome is reached.

Additional optional questions from Salvio giuliano

4. When, if ever, would you block an editor who hasn't received four warnings?

A: When dealing with common or garden vandalism, gross incivility, spamming, etc. the editor concerned needs to have had sufficient warning, which may not always have been four separate warnings, but will almost always in my experience be at least two, the latter of which should be a clear final warning. The behaviour of the editor in these cases needs to have been persistent and it needs to be clear that they have been made aware that what they are doing is both unacceptable and likely to lead to them being blocked. If this has happened and it is clear that the editor is going to continue to behave inappropriately without a block, then a block is appropriate. Other cases warrant a block irrespective of warnings given, such as serious illegal activity (e.g. where there are child protection issues), clear vandalism-only accounts, accounts with usernames deemed inappropriate, 'public' accounts, and unapproved bots. --Michig (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. When, if ever, would you indef an IP editor?

A: "Rarely, if ever" as the blocking policy states. A violating editor can move to another IP address and an IP address can be reassigned to a completely unrelated editor, so blocking an IP address indefinitely would rarely be a good idea. I'm happy to admit that I referred to the relevant policy here - without admin tools, clearly I have not been in a position to block editors or IPs thus far. Should I get the admin tools I would refer to relevant policies again before putting a block in place.--Michig (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question for Mkativerata

6. In closing a standard AfD where the dispute is about notability, how much significance would you give to the raw number of keep and delete !votes, and on what factors would that significance depend? What would cause you to ignore a !vote or give it less weight than others? Note: I'm not treating this as a question over which I'd support or oppose depending on the answer, I just want a feel for your approach to closing AfDs.

A: I don't feel raw numbers of !votes should be a primary consideration as this would essentially mean that the AFD was a vote rather than a discussion. The arguments put forward are the key thing to consider. If editors have expressed keep or delete opinions without explaining why I would give little weight to these. If arguments put forward either way have been shown later to be incorrect (e.g. Delete opinions due to lack of significant coverage where the existence of such coverage has later been clearly established by another editor, or Keep opinions based solely on coverage that has been later shown to be in unreliable sources or of a genuinely trivial nature) then I would also not give these too much weight. I would aim to look at the balance of opinion from contributors who have shown an understanding of notability issues, taking into account evidence that may have been brought forward after some have expressed their opinions.--Michig (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Explicit

7. In question one, you stated that you would like to work with page protection, intervention against vandalism, sockpuppet investigations and the edit-warring noticeboard. Can you please explain the lack of activity in the areas you wish to work in? (Note: Michig has 32 edits to made to AIV and less than ten in the other venues.)

A: I usually come across issues such as these while editing or reviewing edits to articles on my watchlist. I haven't found it necessary to request page protection on many occasions. With regard to intervention against vandalism, I have placed a lot of warnings (at least several hundred I would guess) on editors' talk pages for vandalism - appropriate and timely warnings are sufficient to put a stop to most vandals. I have taken cases to AIV whenever necessary. I haven't gone out of my way to look for vandals, but have dealt with vandalism appropriately, I believe, where I have encountered it. Similarly with edit-warring, most cases can be resolved on the talk page - only where an editor has declined discussion as clearly violated 3RR have I taken it to the noticeboard. Admin tools would allow me to act on other editors' vandalism and edit-warring reports.

Not sure where else to put this: 8 edits to WP:RPP, 6 edits to WP:ANI/3RR, other venues are not edited through their main pages. Airplaneman ✈ 01:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from —fetch·comms

8. Explain CSD criteria A1 and G1 in your own words.

A: A1 is for articles with no context, i.e. the content is insufficient to identify what the article is about. G1 is for articles that are clearly nonsense, e.g. random words, random typing with no meaning.--Michig (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. You label yourself on your userpage as an eventualist. How do you think this affects what you have done in regards to building content up and in your plans to be involved in CSD work?

A: When I first started editing here it was common for articles to have no sources and many were very brief. A lot of articles that I have expanded and improved started out as very brief stubs some years ago. It takes time for many articles to become worthwhile encyclopedia entries, and the original stubs have been useful 'seeds' that have grown into full-grown articles. Eventualism for me means that I don't expect an article to immediately be C-class or above when it's created, and I don't believe in deleting articles on worthwhile encyclopedic topics because they are short or need work - it often takes several editors doing what they can to get an article up to scratch. My minimum standard would be a properly-referenced stub with a verifiable indication of notability - if we cannot get at least to that stage then deletion is appropriate. As far as CSDs go, many that I review have no hope of ever getting to the properly-referenced stub stage.

Question from User:A. B.:

10. Here are 11 articles that were recently proposed for deletion (PROD). I picked them at random:

• Advanced Technology Company
• CRMK Online
• Headblade
• KF Suhodolli
• Not Album
• Perry D Cox
• Ranjeet
• Rarityguide, inc
• ROCK RUDE
• Scared Stiff: Tales of Sex and Death
• Vitamen A

Please work your way through this list giving us your comments on each. Some questions to consider:

• Could any of these articles have been speedily deleted? If so, on what grounds?
• Were any of these articles ineligible for PROD? If so, why? In this case what should have been done instead?
• As an administrator, are there any of these articles you would not delete after the PROD waiting period expires?
• If these articles were under discussion at Articles for Deletion (AfD), what would your !vote (i.e., recommendation) be?
• Is there anything else worth pointing out about these articles?

I know your time is valuable; don’t feel you have to analyze and respond regarding all 11 at once; it's OK to piecemeal your answer. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: Ok, I know some thought that I should ignore this question but I regularly look through proposed deletions and make these sort of judgments almost every day so I'm happy to answer. Taking the first three initially:

• Advanced Technology Company: Although it does seem somewhat promotional, I wouldn't have speedied this as the article asserts that the company has existed since 1931 and had 600 million USD revenues in 2008, which is at least an assertion of significance. I note that the article's title does not appear to match the content. The article is tagged as possibly copyvio, but with no indication of a source. It doesn't appear to be a copyvio of the company's main site, and a web search on parts of the text in the article found no matches other than Wikipedia, so I would not speedy it on those grounds. Looking around the web I found inclusion in trade directories and publications such as Innovative New Packaging in Japan and Cosmetics & Toiletries & Household Products Marketing News in Japan, which I suspect would have too limited an audience to count much towards notability. Reuters does have several items,[1] but these all look like press-releases. I think prod is reasonable here.
• CRMK Online - already speedy-deleted as A7, so cannot comment further.
• Headblade - the only aspects of the article providing any real claim of significance are the MoMA inclusion and the TIME magazine article. I'm not sure how discriminating MoMA are when it comes to holding on to anonymous gifts, and the TIME one is a brief mention, but if TIME are giving it coverage it's worth looking around for coverage elsewhere. Google News found a few articles (San Antonio Express News, Orlando Sentinel), but Google Books found a lot more ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Certainly enough there that this would need a wider discussion before deletion (I have already deprodded it), and possibly enough to avoid deletion altogether. If it went to AFD I would be inclined to !vote keep based on the coverage that exists.--Michig (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few more:

• KF Suhodolli: On the face of it, barely an article, but the infobox indicates that this is a football (or soccer if you're so inclined) team playing in the top league in Kosovo, which if verifiable would make it a good candidate for an article. The initial problem is that the Football Superleague of Kosovo article doesn't list KF Sohodolli as one of the teams in that league, and neither are they listed in Liga e Parë, the countries second division. Google only returns three hits for the article title, two of which are Wikipedia and the other is sourced from Wikipedia. Suhodolli appears to be in Albania. Looking at the infobox, the full name of the club is given and the club badge doesn't match the article title - the article appears to have been copied from KF Trepça and retitled. It doesn't appear to be about a real football club. It's possible that the creator has taken another article as a template for a new one and not finished it yet, but it doesn't look promising. Given that the infobox also indicates that the manager is 'Suhodolli', I think it's safe to assume that this is a hoax/vandalism, and it could be speedied as a G3.
• Not Album: No real context here although the band in question is listed in the table of tracks. Unlikely that a list of an artist's songs not on any album would be suitable as an article. Appears to have been created in good faith, but I can't see this ever making the grade. PROD is fair enough and I wouldn't contest it.
• Perry D Cox: Publications indicate significance at least, but no real indication of notability, so PROD seems correct here. I couldn't find significant coverage of Cox himself and only brief mentions of his books, so this seems one that would be unlikely to be kept at AFD and very suitable for PROD.
• Ranjeet: A BLP that has been around since 2008. PRODded due to 'No references..'. Not previously maintenance tagged as an unreferenced BLP or with any other concerns. The link to IMDB confirms a long film career. This was not a good candidate for proposed deletion. Given his long career, significant coverage is almost certain to exist and in cases such as this we should look to improve rather than delete. Coverage was fairly easy to find ([9], [10], [11]). I've added sources to the article and tagged it appropriately as a BLP requiring further sources.
• Rarityguide, inc: The company being founded in 2010 doesn't look promising re. notability and the article gives no real indication of significance. A quick web search finds nothing to indicate an article is justified. Probably could have been tagged for speedy deletion as an A7, but since an experienced editor has taken it to PROD I'd let it run its course.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ROCK RUDE: The book does exist, and the author's name is Edward Stewart (not Stuart). The article's title should be in mixed case. The author has no article here and this article has no worthwhile content so deletion looks appropriate. It doesn't fall into any speedy-deletion criterion so PROD was the correct course. I did a quick search for coverage but found little, so I would anticipate that this will be deleted once the PROD has run its course.
• Scared Stiff: Tales of Sex and Death: The author appears marginally notable - the sources cited in Ramsey Campbell don't look great. I would be looking for evidence of coverage of the book itself here to justify an article. A Google search wasn't promising. Google News found a possible example of coverage behind a paywall. Google Books shows some coverage: [12] - and these in particular are I think enough to merit at least discussion at AFD: Science fiction & fantasy book review annual, Volume 1988, Ramsey Campbell and modern horror fiction, The modern weird tale, "Scared+Stiff:+Tales+of+Sex+and+Death"&hl=en&ei=-IxzTJGSJtHHswbMprnjCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Scared%20Stiff%3A%20Tales%20of%20Sex%20and%20Death%22&f=false (ahem) The Sex Doll: A History, British fantasy and science-fiction writers since 1960. I've deprodded it.
• Vitamen A: Article suggests coverage in the Riverfront Times and Billboard, so speedy-deletion isn't appropriate. These claims merit a brief search at least. I couldn't find any Billboard coverage (Google Books includes full view of Billboard magazine), but did find coverage from the Riverfront Times ([13]). I also found an article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ([14]), and an article in a student newspaper ([15]) - not enough to establish notability. In this case I think the PROD is fine, although I have indicated what I've found on the article's talk page in case anyone else finds more to add to it.--Michig (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Groomtech

11. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A:

• Links for Michig: Michig (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Michig can be found here.

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

• Editing stats posted at talk page. Diego Grez (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question 10 is unreasonable. I will pledge my support to the candidate, despite a concern I have, if he declines the question. Townlake (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully agree with Townlake that Q10 is unreasonable. I urge candidate to ignore it. Jusdafax 06:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a nominee's answers to questions like mine (#10) give good insights into their judgment on deleting content and their understanding of our policies and guidelines. I've seen too many RfAs get side-tracked by someone cherry-picking the nominee's one bad call (sometimes out of hundreds of good ones) on some previous article's deletion, whether commenting in an AfD or tagging an article with a speedy deletion or proposed deletion template. A nominee's thoughtful comments on 10 or so current, randomly-picked PROD nominees is probably fairer to the candidate and more insightful for the community. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Full support as nominator. –MuZemike 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Absolutely. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Stephen 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. This was a very tough decision, based on the fact he's never edited the portal talk name space. In the end though, why not NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support – Along with a years-long history of good content contributions, he's a conscientious discussant at AfD, where he has a habit of not only identifying sources but also adding them to the article (here is one recent example of many I have noticed). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support ...And they just keep coming... Yes, they lack experience at AIV and RPP, that I can't deny. It appears that the WP namespace isn't this editor's strong point (less than 2,500 edits to the WP and WP talk namespaces in four years of continuous, substantial editing isn't a lot). However, I think the long, continuous, substantial contributions to the actual project more than make up for what's lacking. This user is a dedicated, valuable member of the project -- that is what makes a good admin. Number of vandals reported or number of pages requested for protection can be used to evaluate experience, but we shouldn't come to judge all candidates by such numbers. Long term experience and dedication to the encyclopedia are traits that are just as valuable- if not more so- in a candidate for adminship. Swarm^Talk 02:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support – Definitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support--absolutely. I won't be the last one to say it, but I thought you was one already. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support per Swarm. I was wondering why I hadn't heard of you until I saw what articles you edit... but then again, my battleships are probably just as obscure as your reggae. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Easy call, fully trusted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Checks out okay with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Looks good - and we need good content editors as admins. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Keepscases (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Appears to be a good candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Has schooled me on notability before, politely enough considering how off base I actually was... Have interacted with him for a year with no negative issues, hence my unqualified support. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, absolute. Thought it might have happened long before now. – B.hotep •talk• 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong support, seen him everywhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Another strong candidate. Haven't run into Michig before, that I can recall, but this candidate with extra buttons can only improve the wiki. Best wishes, Jusdafax 06:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Another easy decision. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - Seems fine to me. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - No problems. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 07:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Yes. SilkTork *^YES! 08:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support without question. I am very familiar with Michig's work here - his content contribution and his input at WP:AfD are excellent, and in my dealings with him he has been nothing short of civil and extremely helpful. An experienced editor and valuable contributor, the project will be enhanced with admins of this calibre. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Excellent contributions, good answers to questions, no problems found in review - support as net positive.  Begoon^talk 09:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - No problems here. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 13:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. I see no reasons not to (and I really like your answer to question #4). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support -- per the nomination + answers to question 10. PROD nominees are often gray area articles and a good test of administrator judgment. I appreciate your thoughtful answers to my question and especially your research on the KF Suhodolli. As an admin, I'm wary of deleting such a nicely formatted article about a seemingly obscure topic when any potential sources would probably be in a foreign language. I like your resourcefulness in looking at the linked articles and connecting the dots on what now looks like a fishy article. I think many admins would not have done as good a job with that one. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - qualified candidate. Though he lacks experience with admin tools, I believe that he will refer to relevant policies rather than jump in over his head. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Your incredibly detailed answer to question 10 gives me incredible confidence in your ability to be an administrator. Full support. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Looks good + trusted nominator. Tommy! [message] 14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support—suitable for the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support- Looks good. Nolelover (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - Absolutely, good work Mlpearc powwow 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong Support Secret ^account 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Looks hardworking, patient, and trustworthy; I think a good person to wield the mop. I think Q10 was overkill, but it's reassuring to see the detailed (and presumably time-consuming) answers.bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - No concerns. Good answers to questions. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support No problems here :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Good work all around. —fetch·comms 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Good answers from an experienced editor. I have no concerns. Rje (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Diego Grez (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support A long-time Wikipedian (July 2006); relatively consistent level of contributions; trustworthy (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, no blocks); strong vandal-fighting credentials; light on contributions to WP namespace, but otherwise adequate level of experience across-the-board--Hokeman (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. No problems - a good record and good answers to the questions. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 22,000 edits, over 5 years' experience, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article creator, article rescuer, autoreviewer, great user page, etc. One of our best editors, who "gets it"; has saved many articles and created over 300 new articles, and has the barnstars to prove it. See also User:Michig/How_to_find_sources_for_popular_music_articles. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - Good contributions, no concerns, and they had the guts to answer Q10. -- Atama頭 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Does his homework. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support A great candidate who I'm sure will make a fine admin. Sarah 01:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Strong Support no reason To oppose. Great editor. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - His answer to Q.10. No need to say more. --RexxS (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Without question. Careful, intelligent, fact-based, accurate, knows the rules. One of the best. Let's clone him.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Absolutely full of clue and not at all the extreme inclusionist I was fearing to find when I looked at the nom statement :) Polargeo (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support might as well pile on. Even if they are an inclusionist. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Strong support. Everything checks out. An impressive record on all fronts. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Looks fine to me. ceranthor 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support per Bearian. "Pepper" (Talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support; I'm another on the thought-you-were-an-admin bandwagon. You certainly conduct yourself like one. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. No reason not to support. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Full confidence in MuZemike's opinion. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support After a look through some of yuor talk page and seing a need to undelete articles and also that you answered q10. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Everything checks out, and user has a strong history of edits. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - Another editor of the calibre that the Signpost article was hoping to recruit. No need to lower the bar to let Michig in.--Kudpung (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support as a certain net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Sure. Good luck. Connormah 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support This user is nothing but a positive, very happily support. J04n(talk page) 10:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Q10, great history, civil, communicative etc. Pedro :  Chat  10:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Q10 was a good test. I agree not 100% but sufficiently. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. good contributor, good experience. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Good candidate. Courcelles 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support: Great experience in AfDs and good content provider, and honest intellectual. Will do well in settling content disputes. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Wise editor and good content-builder, plays well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support—looks like an excellent candidate to me. –Grondemar 17:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support nothing wrong here -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Looks like a superb candidate. Good luck! MJ94 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Very impressed. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Jmlk17 19:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Good luck...Modernist (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Townlake (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. I prefer not to support someone who does not seem to have thought about the difference between judges and janitors. Groomtech (talk) 15:53, 29 August 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.