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

final (36/1/2) ending 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouterstomp ( talk · contribs) – This user has been around since July and accumulated 2000 edits, 1500 of which to the article namespace (mainly but not solely his own field of medicine) with good involvement in community projects such as the medical collaboration of the week. His hard work, dedication and participation make me think he'd be an expert at handling the mop. JFW |  T@lk 22:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gladly accept the nomination. -- WS 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Advanced life support. Nominator. JFW |  T@lk 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support in the trenches -- JWSchmidt 15:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. BD2412 T 16:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support - Excellent choice for an admin. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 16:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support good contributor to wikipedia, should make a good admin -- TimPope 17:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Good editor, deserves the tools. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. King of All the Franks 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support Izehar 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 23:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. My experience with him on the medicine collaboration of the week show him to be a knowledgeable, courteous editor who works well with others, and has helped several medical articles reach featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support with no reservations.-- MONGO 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support Can't hurt-- Piedras grandes 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Seems to be an editor's editor. Marskell 09:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support: -- Bhadani 12:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-17 13:58 Z
19. Support. Valuable contributor, reasonable person. - Colin Kimbrell 14:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. --Signed by Chazz - Responses to ( responses). @ 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support. 7 months of editing. Promote. -- Eddie 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Seven months means nothing without quality edits. And no one gets "promoted". This is not a hierachy. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Tell it to Ilyanep. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

22. Support — Moe ε 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support good candidate for admin -- rogerd 05:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support.Contributions look good.-- Dakota ~ ε 09:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support Sarah Ewart 11:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support Impetus behind a new list at WP:MEA a healty user with no visible symptoms. -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 15:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support 172 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support a good candidate. Yamaguchi先生 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. SupportGladly. Tdevries 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support - Sango 123 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. Sorry about that, I meant to show my support last Tuesday.  :) Hall Monitor 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support Latinus 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support -- Ugur Basak 00:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support -- NaconKantari ( 話)|( 郵便) 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168.212.16.2 Needs better vocabulary. -- Masssiveego 04:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I don't understand; are you objecting because he warned someone with the {{ test2}} template? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'm objecting that he didn't use the phrase, this is your first warning. He should have been clear that it is not merely a suggestion, but a warning. -- Masssiveego 04:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   The template does not include that sentence. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 09:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   It was not WS who left the message with "vanadalism". I urge Massiveego to revise his vote. JFW |  T@lk 13:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Your often-perplexing and serial opposition to perfectly valid RFA nomations are becoming disruptive. Please refrain from participating if you are unwilling to provide a valid rationale for your actions. Hall Monitor 18:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   In the ancient Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, a vote was invalid unless there was at least one voting nay when all others voted yeah. Perhaps Masssiveego wants us to understand that unanimous votes are unhealthy :-). JFW |  T@lk 10:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral. I won't oppose, but I still feel that 2,000 edits is too low for a potential admin. I know that I was still pretty green at 2,000 edits and wouldn't have been ready to be an admin then. ^{Blank Verse} 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. 'Neutral. For same reasons as above. Pschemp | Talk 06:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 80% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• See information about Wouterstomp's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

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. Mainly vandalism roll-back. Especially all the vandalism that slips through RC and ends up on my ever-growing watchlist (1500+ articles) with mostly medical pages, but also on recent changes.

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

A. All work on the medicine collaboration of the week. It is really enjoyable to work together with other doctors, medical students and all other interested people to improve the quality of medical pages. Aside from that I also like to create new articles for obscure diseases and other medical topics that almost noone has ever heard of (the list of diseases still has far to much red links).

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 haven't been in any conflicts so far. I my experience most disagreements are usually easily solved on the talk pages, and I hope to keep it that way. If a conflict would arise, I would try to stay friendly and not be afraid to admit when I am wrong myself.

4 What is your stand on the userbox controversy? User:Zoe| ^(talk) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

5 What is your view of fair use images on User pages? User:Zoe| ^(talk) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry I haven't been following either of those discussions, so I don't have a strong opinion about them. My main interest is in the articles and I think it is sad if such discussions take the focus away from what wikipedia really is about. That aside I think users should be free to put on their userpages whatever they want ,as long as it is legal and it doesn't offend other people. Wether fair use images are legal to use on a userpage should best be assessed by a lawyer, not me. If there isn't a clear answer to that question, no risk should be taken and they should not be used I think. -- WS 16:20, 18 January 2006 (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.