Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R.Koot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] R.Koot

final (76/0/0) ending 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

R.Koot (talk • contribs) – Ruud has been on Wikipedia since January 2005, and active since May 2005. Ruud has a good chunk of contributions spread well among the namespaces, contributed to two requests for arbitration (1, 2; evidence and involved party respectively), and is a nice guy always seeking consensus. I believe Ruud can be well-trusted to use the admin tools for the good of Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Ruud 19:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support I'm the first one!  Grue  19:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Moe ε 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. support - wanted to be #2 but only get to be #3 :-( William M. Connolley 19:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry William :-D Moe ε 20:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Nominee seems to understand and abide by wiki guidelines and customs. --TantalumTelluride 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. I guess I should support too, as nominator. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. See no reason not to support. —akghetto talk 21:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, looking good. Kusma (討論) 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support --BrenDJ 23:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Ugur Basak 23:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. He was instrumental in setting an important Main Page Top 8 topic. --Ancheta Wis 23:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support 100% edit summaries is completely unacceptable, I want to see atleast 150%! Will make a good admin though, great leadership skills. Mike (T C) 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --Latinus 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, I could see no reason not to support. --ZsinjTalk 03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Pavel Vozenilek 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Dmharvey 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Paul August ☎ 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support – Obviously. Great wikipedian. deeptrivia (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. I'm surprised he isn't already an admin --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support - good work in CompSci area —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 05:37Z
  22. Support Great Wikipedian, has excellent potential for adminship (and a fellow Dutchman on the English language Wikipedia) gidonb 05:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, thought he was one. Ral315 (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --Terence Ong 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Clearly qualified. --Dragon695 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Cliché. NSLE (T+C) at 07:06 UTC (2006-02-26)
  28. Support Deserves the tools. DaGizzaChat © 08:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Guettarda 08:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Good job. pschemp | talk 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Seems ok to me. - Darwinek 10:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - great contributions on articles and templates. Deserves to be an admin here. --Thorpe | talk 11:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support: yes. --Bhadani 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Fredrik Johansson 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support A great contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support - yes, definitely! --HappyCamper 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good contributions, seems trustworthy.--Dakota ~ ° 19:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Nice edit history, doubt they would abuse admin tools. VegaDark 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support per above. --tomf688{talk} 22:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Obviously. –Joke 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support No reason not to. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Able user. — Adrian Lamo ·· 03:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Good work. —bmills 03:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Makes good contributions, is friendly, and keeps a cool head. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support; so many great editors coming through here! Raven4x4x 08:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support, hell yes. Proto||type 10:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support, everything looks good. Essexmutant 10:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support per above. Stifle 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support per above abakharev 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support --Leland McInnes 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support edits look solid.--MONGO 03:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. *drew 08:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. :) Utopianheaven 11:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Groovy. --Fang Aili 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  63. Totally. +sj + 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support - no reason not to. --Ixfd64 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 16:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support: Hmmmm, <5700 edits, but I guess I'll let this one slide. ;) An excellent candidate. --Cymsdale 22:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support--Jusjih 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Yes WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support sounds good, gets my support, good luck to you. Gryffindor 14:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. SupportdoN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support Mjal 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Prodego talk 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support Per above, nothing more to say. -- Jbamb 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

gee it sure is quiet around here... surely we can dredge up a devil's advocate from somewhere.... Dmharvey 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 19:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See R.Koot's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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:

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. I am an active participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science so I will be happy to carry out any admin task required there, such as renaming pages or merging page histories. I am also quite fond of WP:PROD, I think it really shows how good technology can help to increase the efficiency of the Wikipedia process. I have already signed up to monitor it and will also help to close uncontested deletions if I am elected as an admin. I like digging through page histories, so I think I will be helping out at WP:ANI/3RR.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I haven't written any long articles yet, but see Jump search for a shorter one and Zeller's congruence and Stooge sort#Implementation for some nice pseudocode.
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. The Carl Hewitt affair and upcomming exams caused some extreme WikiStress for me, which I solved in this case by taking a WikiBreak and mostly ignoring him after I returned. Recently I have been in conflict with User:Dzonatas over the computer science article, after four talk page archives of disussion and a lot of pointless reverting, we both managed to compomise thanks to mediation by User:Evanx and User:Sdedeo.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_R.Koot_e539.html"