Final (41/2/0) ending 01:08 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Darwinek ( talk · contribs) Over 14,000 edits since September 2004. Lots of good work on articles, especially as regards biographies and American Civil War-related articles. Has done a lot of work on the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica project and other Wiki projects such as Collaboration of the Week, and also has done much work on categorisation and adding images. Failed admin nom five months ago due to copyvios right at the beginning of his time in Wikipedia - today, he's one of our most diligent reporters of copyvios. Grutness... wha? 01:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I accept. - Darwinek 07:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Of course. Grutness... wha? 01:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support, as I did for the original nomination.- gadfium 01:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- Exir Kamalabadi ^{Criticism is welcomed!} 07:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
4. Give this guy the big red hat!   Denelson 83  09:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support. jni 12:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
6. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 14:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support - Of course. Sango 123 15:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support -- Revolución 15:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support - works hard, does a lot of work that I also do. Obvious Wikiholic and has a lot of edits for one day. He'll make an excellent admin. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 19:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-7 19:59
11. Thought he was one. -- Merovingian (t) (c) 20:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. no problemo. Martin (Bluemoose) 21:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support experienced Wikipedian.-- nixie 00:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support -- llywrch 00:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support without reservation. Tomer ^TALK 00:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support. Very productive, sheesh, over 14,000 edits. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Andre ( talk) 04:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. About time! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Well experienced user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Support Stewart Adcock 09:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Everyking 10:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Support Bratsche ^{talk 5 pillars} 14:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
24. Sure Support - from the beginning of my association with wikipedia (24th March 2005), I found Darwinek active at several places at the same time. -- Bhadani 15:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
25. Support -- malathion ^talk 02:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support. Fire Star 04:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support. Looks a good bet, and Grutness is trustworthy in such matters. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
28. Support. FeloniousMonk 01:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
29. Strong Support - Guettarda 01:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
30. Support. El_C 02:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
31. Support. siafu 15:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Support. -- Briangotts (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
33. Support. Seems that Darwinek has met conditions that lost him adminship months ago. ral 315 01:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Baron Larf 13:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Seems reasonable. Willmcw 21:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
36. Support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
37. Support. — Sesel wa 04:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
38. Support - A tremendous work ethic, will be well suited for the job.-- Knucmo2 20:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
39. Support - Has done good work in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica project. Mr. Know-It-All 01:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
40. Support. The only name of the current nominations I recognize from my CSD cat monitoring. Darwinek's well-reasoned speedy tags indicate a desire to help keep Wikipedia well-scrubbed, thus deserving of the keys to the mop and bucket. Niteowlneils 03:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
41. Support. Active on RC patrol, adding well-reasoned speedy tags. Active cleaning up and maintaining the categorisation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose: while the number of edits on categories is _huge_, during last months there is no activity on VfD or CfD, no reverting vandals and practically no talking to other users. Admins are supposed to deal with various kind of people regularly. Pavel Vozenilek 01:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
   • Latest VfD vote was on August 2nd. so "no activity" is incorrect. Grutness... wha?
   • Ridiculous. I propose we vote on the validity of this oppose :) — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-7 19:57
2. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
   • see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443 --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

• For the previous nomination, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darwinek.- gadfium 01:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

Vandalism is growing up on Wikipedia and I hope that stable versions of articles would help with dealing with it. I would like to help other admins with their work.

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

I am most pleased with Christian Fleetwood and African Americans in the Civil War (both PD texts). My work is also to categorize Wikipedia articles and adding photos, so I am very pleased also with dozens of created categories and hundreds of uploaded PD photos. (now I am doing my project "lakes", adding satellite photos from NASA).

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?

Fortunately, no. That old copyvio issue was my fault. It was in October 2004, when I was a Wiki-freshman and I've put on Wikipedia some copyrighted texts, before I realized that it is a copyright violation. Since last nomination I've tried to mark as copyvio all those contributions. I think it is solved right now. If you'll find some "my" articles which aren't yet marked as copyvio, just let me know.