Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haemo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Haemo

(114/2/0); Originally scheduled to end 06:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 06:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentleman, I present Haemo. His first edit came on 22 July 2005 and has been very active since January of this year. In 2007, Haemo has amassed nearly 9500 edits. I first encountered Haemo in the 9/11-related articles, and have been impressed ever since. He remains remarkably civil during conversations that can often become quite heated. His talk page edits are always extremely intelligent and thought out very well. When Haemo noticed that many of the same topics had been discussed on the main 9/11 talk page, he suggested that we write a FAQ for the talk page.[1] Since, he has worked hard to write the FAQ while insuring that the FAQ is being written to support consensus.[2][3] This symbolizes many of the qualities which have made Haemo a valuable editor: a fantastic work ethic, intelligent and well-thought out responses, a value of consensus, and the willingness to discuss important changes. All of those qualities will make Haemo a solid administrator.

As Shalom notes below in his co-nomination, Haemo has familiarized himself with several areas in the project space with which administrators ought to be familiar. His edits to the project space have shown him to have a great understanding of Wikipedia's various policies. Haemo has become a well-rounded editor, contibuting to many important areas of the project. If the community responds by giving Haemo the administrative tools, Wikipedia will be a better place. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-nomination from Shalom

Haemo joined Wikipedia in 2005 and has been an active editor since January 2007. I reviewed him in May and advised him to expand his efforts in building the encyclopedia. He has answered the call beyond what I expected, with 50 or more edits to Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, StarCraft II, and 4Kids Entertainment - all fine articles. He also has made 50 or more edits to an alphabet soup of administrative pages: WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:AIV, WP:UCFD, WP:SCV, WP:HD, and WP:AFC. Haemo has involved himself in a few minor conflicts, but he has maintained a clean record of civility, and will have no trouble adapting to the additional responsibilities of adminship. Shalom Hello 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you, I accept. --Haemo 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an editor, I've tried to have have as broad a range of experiences as possible, going where there are problems, or backlogs. I would like to keep the same spirit of expansiveness going when I am an admin; going where my experience and expertise can be of assistance, while learning a few new things in the process.
Right now, I can see myself helping to discover and eliminate copyright violations; Suspected Copyright Violations, a page which I have had experience with as an editor has recently added two very productive new bots. As a result, we've found lots of copyright violations which need to be tagged, and then deleted if appropriate. I feel that my experience in this respect will be an asset, and admin tools will help in this regard. I also take part in watching the recent changes log, especially the edits of newly-registered and anonymous editors, who (statistically) make a high number of editing tests, or accidentally (one hopes) violate Wikipedia policies/guidelines. I've definitely had the occasion where admin tools would help in this respect, as my edits to administrator intervention board show.
I have also tried to have a broad and open-minded experience in the different deletion debates; including less-frequented sections like miscellany for deletion, templates for deletion and the consolidated user categories for discussion. I believe that my experience here and understanding of our policies and guidelines would assist me in determining what the consensus in the debate was, and making an appropriate closure decision.
Beyond that, I think I would be an asset in helping with many of the backlogged pages which are causing stress to editors due to backlogs; for instance, I know that the three-revert rules board often has a serious lag, to the extent where I have actually refrained from reporting users since by the time a request would be processed, it could very well end-up being punitive, rather than preventative. I would offer my assistance on this, and other pages, like requests for page protection and sorting speedy deletion candidates; especially attack pages and copyright violations. While these pages have not been my primary focus currently, due to the limited amount of help I can provide without admin tools, I have some experience with them already and would be able to help out more if the community accepts me.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
As Shalom mentioned, for a while I was having a bit of a puzzle deciding where I fit in on Wikipedia. However, I got some good advice from other editors, and now feel that I've surpassed that hurdle — in fact, I discovered that (what I feel to be) my best contributions to Wikipedia come about as a result of interactions with other users.
For instance, I greatly value helping Hildanknight copy-editing I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming, which helped bring them up to good article status. While all credit goes to Hildanknight and Goh wz for those articles, I still feel that the experience I gained, quality content I helped with, and fun I had really rank highly among my contributions.
This also spurred me to being editing more concertedly, and I've written several different articles with the encouragement of other editors. For instance, I've been writing about National Historic Sites of Canada, creating the article for Emily Carr House and Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse (which is a good article candidate). I'm also currently writing about the fascinating Craigdarroch Castle; you can see my draft here. Beyond that, I've totally rewritten K'naan, Market failure, Sweatshop Union, and Harold Keke; expanding and sourcing them. In what is probably the weirdest thing, I wrote the article for Leslie Satcher, despite having never heard of her before I almost nominated one of her articles for procedural deletion. However, I did some poking and found out, hey, she was notable!
All of this has also led me to reach out to other users, by editing on a number of boards, including the help desk, administrator noticeboards, and the reference desk — especially the miscellaneous one, which is endlessly amusing and thought-provoking. I still get a kick when a user thanks me for helping them with a problem, or offering an opinion/suggestion they found particularly useful — I also enjoy it when I help settle down disputes, and meet interesting (and sometimes famous!) people on Wikipedia. Basically, in a phrase, we cannot make a good encyclopedia without making a good community of editors as well, and I do my best to make both of these a reality in every way I can.
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'm a pretty mellow and reasonable person, and as I recounted on my editor review, the only conflict I can remember which caused me any actual grief was with User:Shoons on the 9/11 article. Basically, he made a point about a certain way the article was written, and the inclusion of certain material. I, and a number of other editors discussed this with him in a number of respects. This is not uncommon for this talk page, nor is it uncommon for there to be no real "conclusion" ever reached. However, Shoons felt that this was a systemic bias issue, and raised it on the talk page for that WikiProject — a number of editors, including myself discussed it there and largely reiterated the points made on the talk page. Most then left, but I remained to discuss it with Shoons. We basically went around in circles, until I felt it had basically become an interrogation session and was getting very uncomfortable; since I felt that wasn't a systemic bias issue in the first place. Shoons is not a native English speaker, so it was very frustrating in a number of respects even though I always tried to maintain good faith. Eventually, I just gave up and walked away from the page — initially, I felt bad about that, but after some good advice, I realize that it would have been better for all to have disengaged sooner in a civil fashion.
Other than that, I can't really recall that much, other than sometimes in the past I have argued too concertedly in some deletion debates than is probably helpful; some good advice has helped me to really curb that side of me, in this respect. I do have a bit of a habit to try to convince people a bit too hard sometimes, but I always try to maintain good faith, keep a level head, and be civil; even in sometimes hot situations like on Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and 9/11. I've been working diligently to keep this tendency in bounds, and I seem to have been largely successful. When I do make a mistake, I always try to set things right as soon as I can, and apologize to anyone I have wronged, even inadvertently. I'm always open for discussion, and try be to honest and forthright with other editors — and to remember to try and see things from their point of view, too.
I hope that you will find me trustworthy as a administrator candidate, and I look forward to your constructive comments, questions, and criticism! In addition, I would like to thank Shalom, and Pablo for their nominations and kind comments.

Optional question from J.L.W.S. The Special One

4. Why is it important for admins to have experience in article writing?
A: I know I've discussed this with you before, but article writing, and editing is important to an administrator because Wikipedia is, at its heart, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and not a battleground — all of our policies and guidelines go towards the central premise of making the encyclopedia function properly, and effectively. Articles form the backbone of this process; without articles, the encyclopedia ceases to be. Other tasks, like counter-vandalism, deletion debates, and maintainance serve to preserve the level and quality of the articles which currently exist. Tasks like clean-up and wikifying improve the quality of articles which already exists — however, it all of these are predicated on the creation of good, expandable articles. For an administrator, writing articles is key not only to contributing to the encyclopedia, but also to really understanding the rationale behind many of our most important guidelines and policies — it's hard to say you know the reason behind something with getting some good, first-hand experience with putting it into practice. It also allows administrators a sense of perspective when it comes to making decisions about articles written by other users — it allows them to put themselves in their shoes, and be more sympathetic, even when they feel there is a problem there. In short, writing articles is fundamental to understanding how the encyclopedia functions and it's important to have experience in that respect when granted admin tools.

Very optional questions from L

5a. Your comments above are rather lengthy, can you give a cliff notes version? Remember, 'brevity is ...wit'.
Point form:
  1. I am a trustworthy editor.
  2. Administrator tools will help me, and the encyclopedia.
  3. I enjoy writing, and helping other users.
  4. I have had no major conflicts, and deal with conflict in a reasonable and calm fashion.
  5. Writing articles is good for admins, and the encyclopedia.
The bottom discussion in the oppose section amounts to:
  1. The attacks leveled are ridiculous.
Perhaps not witty, but it is brief ;) --Haemo 06:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
5b. Given your lengthy replies, do you feel this is reflected in your writing, and if so how do you feel about people shortening it? Have you ever been in an edit conflict because someone thought that your writing was too wordy, or you thought another's was too ambiguous?
My lengthy replies tend not to be reflected in my editing; I try to studiously proof and copyedit everything I submit as article text. I have never, to my knowledge, been involved in a conflict where someone felt my editing was too wordy, or another's was too ambiguous.

(Deleted per WP:BLP)

Optional question from SilkTork

7 Can you think of any situation(s) where an admin shouldn't be allowed to delete an article?
A: Yes, several off the top of my head:
  1. When the admin has been previously involved in a content dispute on that page, and has shown that they have argued to oppose the page, or its content. This includes in general, but also as a closure in an AfD; I feel that if an admin is close enough to the content where they hold a strong opinion, and there is some doubt about whether or not it is appropriate that admins should let the community decide, by following standard deletion procedures, and allowing an uninvolved admin to interpret what the final consensus was in the debate.
  2. If another admin has re-created the page recently, especially if the re-creation reverts a prior deletion of yours. Wheel-warring is totally unacceptable, even in its weakest forms. Admins should be careful not to engage in, or assist in, anything that even looks like wheel warring. For instance, if you delete a page over BLP concerns, and another admin disagrees with you and recreates the page, or your deletion is overturned at deletion review, then you need to step aside no matter how strongly you feel their decision was incorrect.
  3. Related to this, admins have recently been confirmed to have more leeway in deleting libelous material about living people. However, I believe they should exercise this power sparingly — it should only be used to delete a page when it is impossible to salvage a notable stub article about the person in question after removing the offending material. They should not use deletion instead of cleanup.
  4. I also feel that admins should refrain from deleting userspace pages against the wishes of the user who "owns" them (note the scarequotes) unless they either see a blatant violation of our guidelines or policies, or go through the proper channels.
  5. It should also go without saying, but disruptive deletions, or deletions designed to make a point are also not productive, or a proper use of admin powers. For instance, I can't think of any reason an admin would have to delete WP:ANI without some concerted prior discussion.
Would blocking an administrator who reverts an ANI edit (in other words, practically deletes someone's comments and entire question and blocks them indefinitely)?
Sorry, I missed this above comment from WKPDX — however, I'm not sure I can answer it, since I'm not sure what it's asking. Would you mind clarifying? --Haemo 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from WKPDX

8. How would you handle an article where a few editors (usernames) dominated an article and reverted most others' edits, frustrating other editors? As you know, some RFC receive little response (or if they get a response, these responding editors may only comment once and not return to the article). Mediation is voluntary. ArbCom doesn't resolve editing disputes.
Well, this is a sticky question, given how much is left up in the air about the article, the editors in question, and what my involvement would be with respect to. For instance, I can definitely see such a situation being a problem — users with a particular point of view often latch onto an article and can, especially in articles which have low traffic, systematically suppress any other point of view in violation of our neutral point of view guidelines. If I happened on the page, I would do my best my best to encourage discussion and debate on the talk page between the editors — especially the "dominant" group of editors. This, in my experience, tends to work very well; most editors are very reasonable and respond well to good faith attempts to write a fair article. However, if this doesn't work, I would work my way up through the dispute resolution series; eventually, any article will attract some exterior attention, though it may be a long process, and discussion will start. I don't really see any "admin" necessity here until probably the very last, and hopefully totally un-necessary stage of going for a community sanction over violating neutral point of view — but that would be a last stage, and way beyond anything in my experience. Admin powers could also be useful here if an edit war broke out over the page; page protection is a valuable tool for encouraging discussion and forging consensus. However, it would not be something I would request, given the involvement on my part you've said is going on, with some prior discussion with other admins. You could say I have some faith that ultimately, the encyclopedia's processes will come through — I try to do my part in this by replying to requests for comment, and following up when I can or see the need.
Anyways, there is also the reverse situation — on many controversial or popular issues there is a dedicated group of editors who try to ensure neutral point of view is maintained in the article. Since these issues are so controversial, they attract many editors with strong points of view who make edits that are not neutral, and end up getting reverted by this group. However, one should remember that there is no cabal, and it can be frustrating for some editors to encounter such an article — for instance, evolution is a good example. In this case, I don't really see a problem; however, as I have some personal experience being in this, it's important for the "not-cabal" to remember that editors are not being malicious and to always keep the lines of communication open for discussion with them when they raise points that may have been previously been discussed to death. I know it can be difficult — I know I have not always had the energy to respond as vigorously as I would have liked on some issues — but it's still important nonetheless.
Naturally, everyone thinks the situation they are in is the latter of the two; which makes wading into any dispute of this type delicate. I would, most of all, keep my eyes open, be cool, be civil, and give everyone the time of day. Anyways, I apologize for the length of this but given such an open-ended question I felt that I probably should cover as many bases as my tried brain can think of, lest I give a false impression of what my views are.

Optional question from Jehochman

9. In an oppose comment below the user references an AfD where you commented on the notability of a blog. How do you feel about using blogs as references? If you'd like an example, our article on search engine optimization relies heavily on blogs and online-only sources. Is that appropriate, or should we delete blog references and use books and newspapers instead?
Okay, I think the context really matters here. Most blogs are not reliable sources, because they tend to be self-published and display no editorial oversight or fact-checking. For instance, nearly anyone can just make a blog, and then write about a subject. However, the line between the mainstream media and the "non-mainstream" media are blurring, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart — for instance, many "traditional" media sources like newspapers and magazines also run "blogs" which the reporters write as they talk about stories. These tend to display editorial oversight and fact checking, and so are reliable sources. There are also very high-profile blogs by certain commentators who are experts, have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and have become "gold standards" for news about certain subjects.
Suffice to say that blogs are, in general, great as primary sources about what a given blogger says and are all over the map when it comes to being reliable (secondary) sources. I tend to evaluate each blog individually — however, most of them simply aren't to the degree where they constitute a reliable source, by their very nature. It's really no different from a self-published pamphlet, or the recording of a speech someone made — without the fact-checking and accuracy, they're not reliable.
To put it another way, blogs are only unacceptable when they don't have a reputation for fact-checking and neutrality — not simply because they're blogs, or online-only sources.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Haemo before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Beat the nom Support - why not. I'm familiar with this editor and see no issues here - Alison ☺ 06:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, I've seen him around, don't see any causes for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Brian | (Talk) 06:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yes - seen around, seems good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Dfrg.msc 07:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. One of a small handful of users I genuinely believed was "already an administrator". On that basis, I see no reason not to support. Daniel→♦ 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support 1) Answers to the questions, in particular Q1. 2) Stunning work at WP:XFD including template and categories 3) Extensive work on copy-vios 4) Civility 5) Helping newbies 6) Personal interaction - For all those at RFA who like a "well-rounded" editor Haemo is a metaphorical Michelin Man! Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Top notch editor, good answers to questions, communicative. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Impressive. —umdrums 07:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Per obvious qualities. Jmlk17 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Very able. Recurring dreams 07:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Don't see anything to worry about... --DarkFalls talk 08:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. - Zeibura (Talk) 10:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Definitely. –sebi 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Support per above. --84.45.219.185 11:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    *Please sign in to your account or leave comments in the general discussion area above. Many Thanks. Pedro |  Chat  12:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Super strong support Haemo has done excellent work on 9/11 pages, as well as working on the talk pages with constant queries and discussion which can be frustrating. Yet, he remains civil and polite, and works constructively. His involvement on the page has allowed me and other long-time editors to step back from the page, and do other things (or in my case take a wikibreak) without concern for the 9/11 pages. I also notice his helpful involvement on the Barbaro family page, which was a big mess in June-July with problematic editor, User:Tiki-two. Haemo would definitely be an excellent admin. --Aude (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support fine work on WP:SCV - a quality which has so far been a solid indicator of people who need the tools and will make good admins. --W.marsh 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. I Support this level-headed, constructive editor. Looking at contributions shows me nothing but reasons to support, one after another. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - The answers to the questions were superb. You have done some good work in both maintenance and article writing on Wikipedia with no civility issues - I am sure you would make a good admin. Camaron1 | Chris 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I've seen this editor around, and I believe he can be trusted. J-stan TalkContribs 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories probably indicates being a glutton for punishment, so he'll fit right in. OK, maybe I'm being a little facetious, but from all appearances, Haemo seems to do very well at conflict resolution and keeping calm in the face of controversy, and experience dealing with copyvios will definitely help. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support fine user, comprehensive answers to questions, nice edit count, can be trusted. Melsaran 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Strong edits to 9/11 pages, and with a solid edit count, time for the mop! Politics rule 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per above. Well-rounded. I found nothing alarming in contribs. Lara♥Love 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support--MONGO 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - I've seen him around, always has good comments at WP:AFD, even if we disagree. Haemo can be trusted with the mop.Bearian 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support - Patient and logical. --PTR 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to strong support after seeing how Haemo has responded to the attacks against him. --PTR 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support. Dedicated, and nominated by two users! Very impressive edit count. No danger in trusting this user. •Malinaccier• T/C 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support My experiences with the candidate have proved sufficiently to me that he will make a fine sysop. VanTucky (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per AFD interactions Corpx 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support a fine user. Acalamari 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Sensible, reliable and experienced. Axl 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support, an experienced user with thorough knowledge of policies and consistently sound judgment. --Muchness 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per Pedro. Using the bandwith of wikipedia, this user definatly needs the mop. --Hirohisat Talk 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support -- I honestly can't see anything wrong here, and the candidate is unlikely to abuse the tools. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. A very well-rounded user, lends his hand in AFD's as well. Singularity 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. I've seen this user regularly in various discussions and even if we are not always in agreement I am always impressed with the quality of the arguments and the level of familiarity with policy. Easy support. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support This editor has impressed with contributions and demeanor. Keep it up! — Scientizzle 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support as a formality at this point. Shalom Hello 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Wow. A great user in every way. -Lemonflash(chat) 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support a fantastic editor who really deserves the mop! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. We need someone who can keep their cool no matter what. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support If his devotion to the page StarCraft II is sign of his ability to handle complicate situtations then he should do just fine with admin tools. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support needs the mop. --Tbeatty 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Probably long overdue.--Húsönd 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support - A solid editor with a strong grasp of the policies and guidelines. I have no concerns about you abusing the extra buttons.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Oh my gosh, this is a big "RfA cliche" moment! Extremely-qualified, gifted candidate. Thank you for taking up the mop. :) Xoloz 05:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support I would make this a strong support, but you're letting the trolls get at you a bit too much. WP:DGAF and WP:DENY might be good reading here. Other than that, I have no problems with you as an admin --Lucid 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    The problem is, Squeakbox is not a troll; he's an editor whom I have previously disagreed with, but nonetheless respected. When comments of the type made come from a source I respect, and who I believe does valuable work here, I feel that I cannot help but reply in as strong and clear as fashion as I can. --Haemo 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support A fine and subtle editor with a level head. CIreland 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support has done an exceptional job as an editor on Wikipedia with sound and thoughtful judgment▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support great contributor, do not believe this user will do anything to harm Wiki. Dureo 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support and somewhat appalled at the exceptionally weak justification given for some serious accusations. --Dweller 13:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. Valuable editor who could do some good work with the mop. Seraphim Whipp 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support per many above. I am impressed at how well he is handling a very serious, and quite baseless accusation. Resolute 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  55. Strong support, late to the party as usual, but better late than never. And well done on your handling of the line of accusations being fired at you. The Rambling Man 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, has dealt with some ludicrous, hyperbolic and unfair accusations with patience and good grace - one of the most vital skills for any administrator. No concerns whatsoever. Neil ム 15:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support, very impressed with the handling of the opposition accusations. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. An editor who keeps a cool head (Deleted per WP:BLP) can probably be trusted to use the buttons calmly and sensibly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. Extremely cool and calm handling of these ridiculous accusations. I normally just browse RfAs rather than !vote, but this user has handled a serious and unwarranted allegation with panache so s/he gets my support. ColdmachineTalk 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support on the basis of your overall history. Additional Kudos awarded for handling the more traumatic elements of this RfA as well as you did. Hiberniantears 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Coolheaded and reasonable, even in the face of ludicrous accusations (see below). Looks like good admin material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Thoughtful. I like thoughtful. SilkTork 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support - I could have sworn you were an administrator. Sean William @ 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support An experienced and calm editor who has outlined good reasons for being an admin. Euryalus 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  65. (Deleted per WP:BLP)
  66. Support Good editor. ~ Infrangible 01:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Haemo seems, on the whole, to be possessed of a sound sense of judgment, a deliberative disposition, a civil demeanor, and an appropriate understanding of adminship (viz., as ministerial), as evidenced in the fine answer to question five, such that I think one can conclude with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive. (Deleted per WP:BLP) Joe 03:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support Yes, I periodically scan RfA to see if anybody I think should be an admin has been nominated. I would definitely be comfortable having this individual as an admin. He's calm, rational, and doesn't bite newbies. spazure (contribs) 04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Furthermore, I'm impressed with the calm and rational way he's been handling the allegations against him. Very few people could handle such a serious issue without exhibiting (quite appropriate) anger and hostility towards the accuser. This shows me that he's calm in the face of adversity (not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think of what I really wanted to use..), an admirable trait in an admin. spazure (contribs) 09:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support See nothing to suggest should not be an excellant admin. Davewild 07:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support. A dedicated, level-headed, experienced user. I see him all over WP, and I have no doubts that he'd make a trustworthy admin. --Krimpet 07:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support no-brainer. —Anas talk? 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support - Would obviously make an excellent admin. I see no problems with any of his edits on Wikipedia, and he seems capable of keeping his cool no matter how outrageous those around him are behaving. Jeffpw 09:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support I see no problems. New England Review Me! 13:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support seemingly conscientious editor, and level-headed response to the manufactured problem below confirms it for me. --Fire Star 火星 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support per noms. Well-rounded editor, will mop responsibly. PeaceNT 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support Clearly able to deal with trouble in a direct and calm manner. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support Very impressed by answers to questions and depth of experience. henrik•talk 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support Experienced editor; no problems that I can see. --John 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  79. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  80. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) I trust you are committed to wikipedia in the way that I would like. We may have some disputes about the 9/11 article, though. I like your style. Cheers, Xiutwel, 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support General sanity, no bad stuff happening, and most of all, we need more administrators with a broad experience around Wikipedia. User:Krator (t c) 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support Plenty of good reasons to support, zero good reasons to oppose. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support - Why not? NSR77 TC 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  84. SupportGood track record and good editor. Harlowraman 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support I see no reason not to trust him. Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support I've seen him around, with no problems. Majorly (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support- sounds like a good person to have the mop. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support I have not known Haemo for a long time, but my regular interactions with him (mostly through IRC and Google Talk) suggest that he's familiar with policy and would be a good admin. As he mentioned in his answer to Question 2, he helped me copy-edit I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming, and both articles attained GA status as a result. Instead of him copy-editing sentences after I submit them, we discussed every word and punctuation mark, refining each sentence until it was ready for submission. I was waiting for Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse to pass GA before supporting, but I realised that the GA backlog elimination drive has ended, and looking through the article, I see no reason why it should not pass (I'll make my support strong if it passes). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support, great! @pple 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support. A dedicated and hard-working editor who upholds Wikipedia values even when the going gets tough. Sunray 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support. I've come across this editor's good work in the past, and he recently communicated in a highly constructive and civil fashion with me when I questioned his removal of some content in an article I watch. I came across this RfA randomly and just wanted to lend support.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support Good noms, great work in a variety of areas. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  93. Strong Support. Haemo has been a tremendous help over at WP:SCV and, with two new bots generating copyvio leads, we need all the admin assistance over there we can get. Will be a great admin. -- But|seriously|folks  05:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support. Excellent and dedicated contributor whose participation as an administrator should greatly help the project. Cla68 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  95. Support: I've seen him around, and he's a good editor. Jonathunder 13:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support. In all the times I've encountered Haemo (mostly at deletion debates), I've always taken away a good impression. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  97. Support. Like Black Falcon, I am familiar with Haemo primarily from UCfD, and I've been uniformly impressed by his well-reasoned, even-tempered responses in what can occasionally become heated discussions. His answers above reinforced my positive opinions of him. Horologium t-c 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  98. Support Seems like a good editor. I see no reason to oppose, so I support. ♠TomasBat 23:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  99. Support—solid editor. — Deckiller 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  100. WP:99 :) Giggy Talk 02:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  101. Support Looks excellent to me, welcome to WP:100 :). Trusilver 03:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  102. Support I believe that adminship is not a big deal. People should not make a big deal out of becoming an admin, and people should not oppose Rfa's for little reasons. I see no big reasons to oppose this user, so I am going to support. Good luck!--†Sir James Paul† 09:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  103. Support. I appreciate SiREX' investigation and concise reporting of the incident raised below. I call on SB to recant and apologize immediately. As for this user, I see he has weathered a storm with composure -- a needed quality in an admin. His striking of his own comment in a discussion after being canvassed suggests he is desirous of remaining free of any suggestions of wrongdoing or participation in such. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  104. Support. I see no reason to deny this application. (Deleted per WP:BLP)Cynical 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  105. Support I trust this user, their view on an issue has nothing to do with how they are going to act as an administrator. DarthGriz98 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  106. Support. Has kept a very level head where I've seen his work, which has been in the conspiracy theory articles.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  107. Support. Lucks trustworthy and seems to know what he's doing. WjBscribe 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  108. Support. Also looks trustworthy. - Jehochman Talk 01:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  109. Maxim 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  110. Support, good contributor, I hope you become a good admin. Carlosguitar 05:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    Support, Get on it. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) You already place your input above. nattang 07:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  111. Support nattang 07:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  112. Support I have seen Haemo around for a while, and have never once seen an action I'd question on his/her part. We've run into each other at WP:RFCN and I've found Haemo's comments and suggestions both knowledgeable, and insightful. S/he seems to have a very firm grasp of the infrastructure of Wikipedia, and I would feel no qualms about Haemo having the the added tools. I believe the concerns raised by SqueakBox were sufficiently nullified; Pascal said it quite succinctly. The only issue of any consideration raised is that of Sefringle, and I don't get the feeling that Haemo doesn't understand notability, but rather that the focus was on a different aspect of notability, in Haemo's eyes. (Blogs about other blogs being reliable sources, vs. blogs themselves being notable.) There are many "popular" blogs out there, but that doesn't mean that each one should have a Wikipedia article. I also think that perhaps the subject matter of that particular AfD may have brought out strong feelings and Haemo's weak delete vote may have been seen differently than with other AfDs. In conclusion, I believe Wikipedia would be improved by having this well-rounded, experienced editor as an administrator. Ariel♥Gold 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  113. Support, don't see any problems. Wizardman 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  114. Support Trustworthy user who won't abuse the tools. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  115. Support All my interactions with Haemo have been positive - he is here to improve the encyclopedia. I like his answers to the questions. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I dont like the crudentials. Chatchien 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)— Chatchien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC). The account was created August 15
  1. (Deleted per WP:BLP)
  2. Oppose based on your comments in this afd, I don't think you understand what notability is, and may actually delete articles about notable organizations and people, and claim they are not notable.--SefringleTalk 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral base on his response to Van Tuckey's comms, SqueakBox 02:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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.