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
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I humbly accept. --
Interiot 21:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Support. FireFox 21:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Good level of activity, per er His own tool. --
pgk(
talk) 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support see him around all the time, I trust him. -
Greg Asche(talk) 22:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support I thought you were a admin --
Jarandawat's sup 22:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support! He's not one already?! —
Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Support, valuable Wikipedian. --
DS1953talk 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose all oppose votes. This man deserves admin powers 5 times over.
Mo0[
talk] 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support!!! I was "so" sure he was one already! Phædriel ♥ tell me 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A quality contributor. --Jay (
Reply) 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Support - looks like a great user. --
PeruvianLlama(
spit) 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support good editor. --
a.n.o.n.y.mt 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Yup Was planning to nominate him after arbcom polls anyways, --
Gurubrahma 12:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support of course! I didn't know he wasn't a sysop. --
Terence Ong 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. He would be a very good admin. -
Darwinek 12:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I now use his tool more than Kate's
DaGizzaChat(c) 12:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support - loving the tool - keep it up! --
Celestianpowerháblame 12:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Syrthiss 14:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Everything looks good to me.--
MONGO 16:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"I didn't know he wasn't one!"TMSupport. All around nice guy and solid contributor, toolsmeister extraordinaire. ++
Lar:
t/
c 19:16, 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 Pleasant, intelligent, reasonable and coherent.
Walter Siegmund(talk) 02:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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]])reply
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)reply
Support. Yes, cliche at this point. Great tools. No question that he deserves this. —
A 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Support: anyone who ends with sockpuppets voting against him must be doing something right. smurrayinchester(
User), (
Talk) 12:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. That edit counter is pretty cool, yo. -
Colin Kimbrell 14:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Tool-assisted support. How can you not support Interiot?
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
yeah, like what i've seen.
Derex 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - as per everyone else who said 'What the hell?' when they realised Interiot was not, actually, an admin.
Prototc 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - have yet another support vote!
Ian13ID:540053 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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
Support - Great asset to Wikipedia.
Sue Anne 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I concur, a disturbing example of his continued warpath on Wikipedia. Carpenterman 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
The said vandal would be an impersonator,
Interiot`.
æle✆ 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)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.
Mathbot 22:00, 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 me 23:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)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.