Final (110/0/0) ended 22:03, January 21, 2006 (UTC)
Interiot (
talk·contribs) – Interiot has been an invaluable member of Wikipedia ever since he joined in October of 2004. Although he didn't start regularly editing until July of last year, his contributions have been excellent, with over 3400 edits, including over half of those being to articles. In addition, he has also shown his dedication to the project by working on some technical tools to enhance Wikipedia and the processes behind it (such as RfA); his
tools created include an enhanced edit counter, contributions tree, and an ArbCom elections tracker that tabulates the vote and percentages and flags invalid votes. He is an invaluable editor and Wikipedian; it's time for him to be granted the mop.
Flcelloguy (
A note?)
22:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"I didn't know he wasn't one!"TMSupport. All around nice guy and solid contributor, toolsmeister extraordinaire. ++
Lar:
t/
c19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"Argh, I was late and was edit-conflicted!" support. He's an excellent contributor, and I was surprised when I learned he wasn't in ug_groups=sysop.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support! I use his edit counter frequently (much more than Kate's, though since it was down for a while I haven't linked to it on my user page in a while), and my interactions with him, although limited, have been positive. I agree with the others in saying that adminship is long overdue for Interiot; his tools are great, and he seems like he can be trusted with admin tasks. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk)
20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: The editing tool is great and has a healthy amount of edits. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sreed1234 (
talk •
contribs)
Support - why the hell not? Who doesn't use the count tool? Oh, and a perfect edit count record on recent modifications. A worthier candidate I have never seen.
haz (
user talk)
20:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Might I also add that "Interiot'" was created/contributed at 22:43 UTC on
January 14 , "Jake345" was created and voted oppose less than 20 minutes later, @ 23:01 UTC
[1], and "Carpenterman" was created 1 minute later, @ 23:03 UTC
[2] and also votes oppose. Also strange that additional contributions are not made, and just a little too funny that a "new" user would quickly find their way to an RfA vote, 2 times, within minutes. I think we have a sockpuppet on our hands. --Jay (
Reply)23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I've also taken the liberty to remove the contents of his user page, which were copied wholesale from
SimonP's in order to disguise himself as a "respectable" user regarding this RfA. Phædriel ♥ tell me23:41, 14 January 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:
A. I would continue reverting vandalism found in my 900+ page watchlist, and doing image RC patrol. I've helped with new-page patrol and AfD, and will continue that as well. I generally help out with backlogs that are interesting or are very helpful to Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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 usually work on science/computer/automobile articles, and content disputes seem to be less frequent in those areas. Also, most people edit in good faith, and if I get stressed over more minor issues, I think it's better to step away, because as long as the encyclopedia is improving,
eventually things will turn out okay.
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.
Final (110/0/0) ended 22:03, January 21, 2006 (UTC)
Interiot (
talk·contribs) – Interiot has been an invaluable member of Wikipedia ever since he joined in October of 2004. Although he didn't start regularly editing until July of last year, his contributions have been excellent, with over 3400 edits, including over half of those being to articles. In addition, he has also shown his dedication to the project by working on some technical tools to enhance Wikipedia and the processes behind it (such as RfA); his
tools created include an enhanced edit counter, contributions tree, and an ArbCom elections tracker that tabulates the vote and percentages and flags invalid votes. He is an invaluable editor and Wikipedian; it's time for him to be granted the mop.
Flcelloguy (
A note?)
22:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"I didn't know he wasn't one!"TMSupport. All around nice guy and solid contributor, toolsmeister extraordinaire. ++
Lar:
t/
c19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"Argh, I was late and was edit-conflicted!" support. He's an excellent contributor, and I was surprised when I learned he wasn't in ug_groups=sysop.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support! I use his edit counter frequently (much more than Kate's, though since it was down for a while I haven't linked to it on my user page in a while), and my interactions with him, although limited, have been positive. I agree with the others in saying that adminship is long overdue for Interiot; his tools are great, and he seems like he can be trusted with admin tasks. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk)
20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: The editing tool is great and has a healthy amount of edits. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sreed1234 (
talk •
contribs)
Support - why the hell not? Who doesn't use the count tool? Oh, and a perfect edit count record on recent modifications. A worthier candidate I have never seen.
haz (
user talk)
20:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Might I also add that "Interiot'" was created/contributed at 22:43 UTC on
January 14 , "Jake345" was created and voted oppose less than 20 minutes later, @ 23:01 UTC
[1], and "Carpenterman" was created 1 minute later, @ 23:03 UTC
[2] and also votes oppose. Also strange that additional contributions are not made, and just a little too funny that a "new" user would quickly find their way to an RfA vote, 2 times, within minutes. I think we have a sockpuppet on our hands. --Jay (
Reply)23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I've also taken the liberty to remove the contents of his user page, which were copied wholesale from
SimonP's in order to disguise himself as a "respectable" user regarding this RfA. Phædriel ♥ tell me23:41, 14 January 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:
A. I would continue reverting vandalism found in my 900+ page watchlist, and doing image RC patrol. I've helped with new-page patrol and AfD, and will continue that as well. I generally help out with backlogs that are interesting or are very helpful to Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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 usually work on science/computer/automobile articles, and content disputes seem to be less frequent in those areas. Also, most people edit in good faith, and if I get stressed over more minor issues, I think it's better to step away, because as long as the encyclopedia is improving,
eventually things will turn out okay.
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.