Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Interiot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Interiot

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I humbly accept. --Interiot 21:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. FireFox 21:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Mihai -talk 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. You betcha. --CBD ☎ ✉ 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Seems quite helpful. Dragons flight 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Good level of activity, per er His own tool. --pgk(talk) 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support see him around all the time, I trust him. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support I thought you were a admin --Jaranda wat's sup 22:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support! He's not one already?! —Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. I know it's an RFA cliché but I'm amazed that Interiot wasn't an admin. David | Talk 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, valuable Wikipedian. -- DS1953 talk 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose all oppose votes. This man deserves admin powers 5 times over. Mo0[talk] 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support!!! I was "so" sure he was one already! Phædriel ♥ tell me 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. A quality contributor. --Jay (Reply) 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Excuse my French, but why the hell wasn't he an admin. in the first place? I oppose the oppose votes :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - looks like a great user. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - Of course! Sango123 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-14 23:53
  19. Support --NaconKantari 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Couldn't he just write his own admin tools? ~MDD4696 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support good user.--Alhutch 00:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support! 'nuff said. — TheKMantalk 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. --TantalumTelluride 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. For great justice. --King of All the Franks 00:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support I think he is quite capable and trustworthy.--Dakota ~ ε 01:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support then again, maybe Interiot's Tool is programmed to give good numbers for Interiot… --Wikiacc • § 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support This adminship is waaaaaaaaaaay past due. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. LordViD 04:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Suppport Dedicated, well respected and deserving. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. -Rebelguys2 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Trustworthy user. Xoloz 05:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support --Masssiveego 06:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Definitely trustworthy and would make good use of the mop and bucket. JtkieferT | C | @ this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee ---- 08:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Yup Was planning to nominate him after arbcom polls anyways, --Gurubrahma 12:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support of course! I didn't know he wasn't a sysop. --Terence Ong 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. He would be a very good admin. - Darwinek 12:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support I now use his tool more than Kate's DaGizzaChat (c) 12:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong support - loving the tool - keep it up! --Celestianpower háblame 12:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support --Syrthiss 14:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Everything looks good to me.--MONGO 16:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support; worthy. Antandrus (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support looks like an excellent contributor --TimPope 17:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. "I didn't know he wasn't one!"TM Support. All around nice guy and solid contributor, toolsmeister extraordinaire. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. "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)
  50. 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)
  51. Support: The editing tool is great and has a healthy amount of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreed1234 (talk • contribs)
  52. 'Butter Support'Sceptre (Talk) 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support of course --rogerd 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Kusma (討論) 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Pleasant, intelligent, reasonable and coherent. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. I don't often vote on RfAs, but Interiot fully deserves my support. [[Sam Korn]] 22:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (Vote moved from oppose because I put it in the wrong place [[Sam Korn]])
  57. Support Rock-solid. Good gent, and I am certain he will find the Admin toolkit to be useful.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. support Grutness...wha? 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Wow...So many cliche'd thoughts I have about thinking he already was one! Of course! -Mysekurity 08:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. --Viriditas 11:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support wholeheartedly. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. BD2412 T 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Should go without saying. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Good good. Jonathunder 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. Youngamerican 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support Izehar 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. Per everyone else! - Trysha (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support per Trysha. Thryduulf 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Trundle out the ol' cliché ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. #1 cliche Support Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support. Yes, cliche at this point. Great tools. No question that he deserves this. —A 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. I don't believe I didn't see this RFA. You are very deserving of it. NSLE (T+C) 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support: anyone who ends with sockpuppets voting against him must be doing something right. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 12:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support. That edit counter is pretty cool, yo. -Colin Kimbrell 14:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Strong support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 14:53Z
  79. Support. Good track record. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support --Ugur Basak 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support...there's nothing more that needs to be said. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support At this point I'm just adding my voice to the overwhelming din. --Bachrach44 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. A Strong DUH Support — Moe ε 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Thought he already was one! :-) WikiFanatic 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. SupportTan DX 10:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support Sarah Ewart 11:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support Thryduulf 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support Your tools are very useful, and I'm sure you'll do many more great things with admin abilities. --Lightdarkness 20:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Tool-assisted support. How can you not support Interiot? JHMM13 (T | C) 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. yeah, like what i've seen. Derex 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support 172 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support Excellent contributor. Avi 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support, good user. JYolkowski // talk 03:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. utcursch | talk 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support One of those "duh" supports. Banes 10:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support per Smurrayinchester. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support for the many reasons already listed. -- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support Wow! You're not already an admin! I can't believe it! --M@thwiz2020 02:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support - as per everyone else who said 'What the hell?' when they realised Interiot was not, actually, an admin. Proto t c 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support - have yet another support vote! Ian13ID:540053 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. 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)
  105. Support - Great asset to Wikipedia. Sue Anne 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support - Dharmabum420 00:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support has six letters. This guy's not admin? So per pretty much everyone above. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support. great contribustions. Pschemp | Talk 06:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support for the counter I now have linked to my user count link. - RoyBoy 800 09:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support Seems very nice and helpful :) -cohesion★talk 10:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  • This user is vandalizing during his RFA! Jake345 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur, a disturbing example of his continued warpath on Wikipedia. Carpenterman 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The said vandal would be an impersonator, Interiot`. æle ✆ 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note the above two users User:Carpenterman and User:Jake345 both at present have two edits, one to create a small userpage, one to vote oppose here. --pgk(talk) 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Impostor's sockpuppets blocked. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-14 23:53

Neutral

Comments

  • 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. Mathbot 22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See information about Interiot's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
  • I have reverted and blocked Cherokye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) whose only contributions were to vandalize this RFA and change the votes of others. Dragons flight 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 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 me 23:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how the user requires admin tools. I do not believe administratorship is a "reward" for good conduct. Avriette 20:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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 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?
A. I'm most proud of my contributions to level design and Mississippi River Delta, though I've significantly contributed to a number of articles and have contributed a number of original images as well.
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.