Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoopydink

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

[edit] Hoopydink

Final Ended 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoopydink (talk • contribs) – Hi all! First off, thank you for deciding to participate in my request for adminship! I appreciate all of you spending some of your valuable time to discuss my request. I'm looking forward to taking some of the comments and suggestions that I hope you’ll list and use them to become a better Wikipedian and potentially a more self-aware administrator. I’d like the ability to use the extra buttons, as I think that they will help me become a more productive editor and I hope they will also allow me to help make Wikipedia a better place. The following is an overview of my edits and contributions. Please see Q1 for a detailed reason for why I’d like to become an administrator and how I would specifically use the tools (sneak peek: backlogs, requests, blocking, rollback, real-time assistance).

• Edit count -Around 4,600
• Time around – I started contributing in January of 2006 haven't looked back!
• Civil? – I sure hope so!
• No personal attacks – I hold myself to a rather strict set of standards when it comes to interacting with other users and would be rather disappointed in myself if I acted out of sorts. This is easily the worst I’ve ever acted towards another user and was an isolated incident. Please see Q3 for a detailed explanation.
• Edit summaries – Pretty good
• Mistakes – Sure, everyone makes them. I made some early mistakes when I first started using VandalProof some months ago, and my current mistakes usually stem from minor spelling or diction errors that I don’t spot immediately.
• Email enabled? – Yep.
• Userpage? – Very simple.

• I supported your RfA, but why should your userpage matter? - Mike 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a big deal, but as it was part of the format I borrowed and is the first thing a user often sees when clicking on another user's name, I figured I mention it (some Wikipedians appreciate user-friendly pages that have easily accessible links to e-mail, the talk, page, user contrubutions, various logs, etc.). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Any edit warring/blocks? – Nope. I’ve been in two or three minor content disputes and all have been solved on the talk page with friendly and productive discussions (please see this discussion from April, this discussion in regards to Zinedine Zidane, and this archived group of discussions in regards to controversies in the 2006 World Cup).

Contributions review

As my edit count alone says very little about my contributions to Wikipedia, I’ll give a brief overview of what I’ve actually been doing with my edits (Note: Gwernol recently employed this method as Guinnog’s RfA nominator, so this format, which I think is great, is credited to him and Petros471)

• Article: (~1900 edits) A large portion of my article edits come from vandalism-reversion while doing recent changes patrolling (I also have a considerable amount of non-edits resulting from tagging articles under the criteria for speedy deletion). I’ve written quite a few articles, mostly rugby union related (I contribute heavily towards WikiProject Rugby union). My main focus has been creating and editing articles that deal with rugby union in North America (See Rugby union in the United States, Rugby Super League, Boston RFC (a Good Article), USA Hawks, USA Falcons, Boston Irish Wolfhounds, Chicago Lions, Canada East, Canada West, San Francisco Golden Gate RFC, among quite a few others). I also edit some of the more popular rugby union articles. In addition to the rugby union topic, I’ve created some random stubs and small articles that

I meant to expand, but never got around to doing so.

• Article talk: (~160 edits) I always try to explain the rationale of my edits if I make a large or potentially controversial edit to an article. I was also involved in a great collaboration at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies. We were able to ensure that the article had a neutral point of view during the World Cup when things get a bit crazy. We compared sources from many different publications on many different incidents and were able to reach consensus in a friendly and amicable way throughout the discussions.
• User: (~ 100 edits) Most of these edits stem from my sandbox and reverting vandalism on userpages of other Wikipedians. My own User:Hoopydink is very simple and up until recently I used the Esperanza information box as my de facto user page.
• User talk: (~1700 edits) The large amount of user talk edits results from my leaving the appropriate warnings on a vandal’s user talk page almost every single time I revert vandalism. I also almost always respond to a user on both mine and his/her talk pages. This is so we can both have a point of reference, as I have no idea who watches my user talk page. My user talk count is inflated quite a bit as a result of my duplicate messages.
• Wikipedia: (~700 edits) I’ve made about 100 reports to AIV, I have gained some experience in discussing *fD’s, and I’m a regular contributor to the discussions at RfA. I’ve also recently begun to post at the administrators noticeboard.
• Wikipedia talk: (~40 edits) I haven’t really contributed much here, but I’ve been part of some interesting and productive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (here, here, and I think I made a good edit here), and Wikipedia talk: Stable versions now (here).
• Image: (~50 edits) I’ve uploaded a good amount of images to include in articles (mostly rugby related images). All the images have been appropriately tagged and I’m fairly certain that none of the images I’ve uploaded have been deleted Meegs pointed out some image issues, and I'm now working to ensure that they are appropriate for Wikipedia

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsolicited post-factum co-nomination: This user has left a perceptible imprint on WP in the last few months. He has engaged other users time and again with well thought out and forcefully argumented comments, and has behaved quite administrator-like. He is quite friendly, is unafraid to do the difficult thing, and has my unconditional wiki-trust. Bemop this user! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:21, 5 September 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: Should I become an administrator, I will tread very carefully at first and use the tools to simply enhance how I usually edit. That is, to say, I will be able to do for myself what I often ask of administrators. I do RC patrolling often, and with the administrative tools, I'll be able to use administrative rollback, as well as help alleviate some of the backlogs I often add to (specifically WP:AIV and the CSD backlogs). The following is a (hopefully) more concise overview of how I would use the administrator rights:

• Real-time vandalism prevention: I've made over 100 edits to AIV and am often in the various Wikipedia IRC channels asking administrators to take a look at some of the more pressing reports. I envision myself as someone people can approach when they need administrative assistance in dealing with vandalism, be it a block or a level of page protection. To this end, I will be consistently monitoring WP:AIV, WP:RPP, the administrators' noticeboards, and the various IRC channels, which are increasingly becoming a preferred method to grab an administrator's attention.
• Real-time user assistance: I've been watching and editing the administrators' noticeboard lately and I'd be more than willing to help out any users requiring administrative assistance or intervention. I am also planning to monitor users' requests for unblocking. I feel that it's necessary for unblock requests to be reviewed rather swiftly, and while I would never undo another administrator's block without first consulting the blocking administrator or acheiving consensus on one of the administrators' noticeboards, I would make an effort to let the user know that an administrator is looking into the situation. As I mentioned above, I'm often in many Wikipedia-related IRC channels and will be available for assistance.

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

A: Lots of areas on Wikipedia give me pleasure, from productive discussions and free-flowing opinions on *fD's and talk pages to collaborating on articles with other users. In terms of my own article writing and creations, I'm very happy with the work we've done at WikiProject Rugby union. I've collaborated with lots of people that are both great rugby fans and dedicated editors. My primary foci has been creating articles (most are stubs) for second and third tiered nations that play rugby union (See Rugby union in Japan, Rugby union in Russia, Rugby union in the United States, and Rugby union in Bulgaria, for example), and creating articles for North American rugby clubs and competitions (I've created or heavily contributed to over twenty of these sorts of articles). Boston RFC has very recently become a good article, one of thirteen sport team Good Articles on Wikipedia. I have created a rather specific rubric and have collected a lot of information, so I hope

that every team that competes in the Super League will soon become a good article.

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: Honestly, not really. I've been here for a while and have been lucky to have a positive experience throughout. I edit Wikipedia because it's fun, and I can't imagine being anything less than collegial with other users, for then Wikipedia would cease to be fun. I've certainly not accrued any undue stress as a result of my editing. With the interest of giving a complete an overview as I can about my Wikipedia experience, I'll provide some diffs of my more controversial (for lack of a better word) encounters. I had two discussions with Srose that involved a potentially inappropriate usage of userspace and a large removal of content (discussions can be found here and here). These issues were resolved rather quickly and Srose and I are on very friendly terms. I also initiated a

heavily debated CfD. I initiated the discussion after asking a particpant to the category what he thought (here). I became a bit irked when a user used "You suxx0r" as rationale (at the time, I was unaware that the term is often used as internet slang and was intended in jest) and made some repetitive comments that probably weren't very helpful to the discussion. Kim Bruning and I also had a brief misunderstanding during that CfD, but after talking to him on IRC soon after, we are now on rather collegial terms. The last thing I can think of is that I left a rather stern warning to a user here. I was a bit heated after the user had reported that Peter Gammons (who had then recently suffered a brain aneurysm) had died and had been caught with child pornography. The user was soon indefinitely blocked after using sockpuppets to further vandalise the article. This was easily the most affected I had ever been by a vandal and I am usually quite a bit more level-headed

4. (optional) Your user page indicates that you are also active on the Irish Wikipedia. How active are you over there? thanks, --T-rex 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Hi! Thanks for the question! I'm basically inactive at the Irish Wikipedia at the moment. I read the articles there quite often, but am a very weak contributor. I registered the day I found out that we had an Irish Wikipedia with the aim of splitting my time between there and the English Wikipedia. I've been meaning to start really contributing, but my time has gone to projects on the English Wikipedia I'm currently involved in. I love conversing with others in Gaeilge, so I formed #wikipedia-ga, an IRC channel for Irish speaking Wikipedians. However, like the Irish Wikipedia, the IRC channel is largely inactive, unfortunately. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

5. (optional) Check out our huge admin backlog. Some pages, such as WP:CP, desperately need help. Intend to help with anything other than AIV and CSD? alphaChimp^(talk) 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A: That's a great question, Alphachimp! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate a bit. Should I become an administrator, I'll be focusing primarily on the CSD and AIV backlogs as that is just a natural extension of how I often regularly edit doing RC patrolling. That said, I'd definitely be willing to help out wherever I could be of use. I was unaware of the pressing need for administrator presence at WP:CP and will definitely help out there once I get my bearings. That is, I'll be asking administrators who already help out there (and any other areas where I've little experience) to give me a bit of coaching before I dive right in. I'll also be consistently monitoring the administrators' noticeboard and it's sub-boards (AN/I, for example) with the aims of helping out there wherever I can. These reports seem to be all-encompassing and are great to work on, as there's often mulitple perspectives, ideas, and suggestions on how to best address these situations.

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good answer. Admittedly, the backlog on this type of page is due to some of the complexity surrounding the issues. It's not necessarily the most simple or rewarding admin activity, but it does need to get done, and I appreciate your answer. Of course, AIV and CSD contributions are always appreciated. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

6. (optional) You have very few edits in the Category namespace. Can you indicate whether you have been active in Wikipedia namespace areas concerning categories? Would you feel confident enough to use your admin tools in this area? Carcharoth 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Another great question! The only edits to the category namespace I can recall is adding a notice that a category had been proposed for discussion. I will often add the appropriate categories to articles I work on, so I'm aware of how to use them. In terms of using admin tools with regards to categories, I don't plan on closing any CfD's unless an admin asks me for help with a large backlog (*fD closing is not an area I've much, if any, experience in).

Comments

Current tally: (95/2/0)

Support

1. 1st Support Hoopydink makes a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, I believe will do a good job as an admin. Good luck! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Super-Duper 2^nd support - User certainly presents themself well, and have good faith within the user. Iolakana•T 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. I had some concerns about some of this editor's actions and in particular some nominations, wondering if he gets the wiki way... but I've had a chance to talk to him and I think he does get it. Moreover, the record of contributions is solid, and shows a prelediction for the sorts of things that good admins do before they become good admins. I think Hoopydink is a fine candidate and I look forward to working with him. Support ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. He's not already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Contributions look good! The Land 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support; seen him around, been impressed so far; good answers and examples. Antandrus (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Honestly, I was pretty sure you were already an admin. Past experiences give me no reason to worry he'll abuse the tools, and he seems more levelheaded than many. Always responsive and helpful on IRC. Luna Santin 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support despite the slightly malformed nom. User meets my civility and 2k edit requirements. He's also a clear asset to the WP:AIV board. Best of luck on your RFA, Hoopy. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. The candidate's abject crueltyhelpful criticism on my own RfA well and truly demonstrated that hoopy knows what he's doing. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I don't see why not. FireSpike 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I'll support on the basis of the above answers to questions and the quick and constructive response to observations on the copyright status of some of the images that you have uploaded. (aeropagitica) 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support. (edit conflict) I like to think I am on top of things. When I see "I already thought (s)he was an admin..." votes, I think to myself, "Wow, they need to pay more attention!" However, I was caught off guard for this one. I am positively shocked that you are not already an admin. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
14. I really hate to drop this cliche, but after reading his posts at ANI and elsewhere, I had to double-check that he wasn't already an admin. Several times. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Strong candidate AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Excellent user, trustworthy, and could use the tools. Every time I look this user up I'm surprised there this user isn't an admin or that there hasn't been a previous RfA. Agent 86 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. based solely on the highly organized and detailed summary of user's contributions. :) Dlohcierekim 00:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Highly qualified candidate with ample article and project space experience.-- danntm ^T _C 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support great editor! - Mike 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. This is a very well executed request from a clearly capable candidate, I have no doubt he will use the tools to continue his good work. Rje 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per Agent 86 and Luna S., consistent with my RfA guidelines, and insofar as, like Daveydweeb, I often find myself admiring Hoopydink's RfA comments, such that I think he/she has an excellent conception of that which an admin should be and is possessed of the measured judgment that portends propitious tool use. Joe 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
23.  Jorcoga  Supports and recommends that you do too on 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
24. Unsolicited co-nominator Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support A great asset. Set him to work asap... Tyrenius 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. A good editor, vandal fighter, and communicator. Looking through his contributions and talk page, it's clear that he learns from his own mistakes, is helpful to others, and takes WP:BITE seriously. ×Meegs 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Merovingian - Talk 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, good user. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support. I see your name all over, and I've never had trouble with the users you report to AIV. You're a great user, and will make a great admin :). alphaChimp^(talk) 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - I hate to invoke RfA cliche #1 but I for the longest time honestly believed he was already an administrator. In fact it wasn't until my own RfA that I realised this wasnt the case. Long overdue, strong support. - Glen 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Pile on Support - there, I did it -- Tawker 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
32. More Support Yet! - me too. Kukini 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support no question. An asset -- Samir धर्म 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Jump up and down on top of Samir's head support I wonder what a hoopymop looks like.... Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
35. /me supports --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support: my, my, it seems like my RFA has encouraged all the regular vandalfighters at #wikipedia to run. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support and happy to Nigel ^(Talk) 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support - good vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Great user, will be a great admin. - The Bethling 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, great editor, has done a lot of work fighting vandalism.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Yes! Yes! JungleCat talk/contrib 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{15:19, 05 September 2006}
44. That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, I do believe I was tempted to nominate them in the past. No need now.--Andeh 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - per RfA cliche #1 and CrazyRussian --T-rex 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. RFerreira 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - I thought he was an admin already. He'd make an excellent addtion! Mhking 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support reasonable, attentive user with a good work ethic. Yeah, that sounds good. feydey 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Suport don't see why not, alot of good edits for a short time. Coasttocoast 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. I'm more than happy to support Hoopy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Hoopy has a good sense of humor and was very civil and helpful in the two rather lengthy discussions we had. Srose (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I too thought the user was an admin; I confess that I checked the User Rights log to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Hoopydink does well in RC patrolling and Wikipedia discussion, I trust 'em with the tools. Please, though, do more than AIV and CSD. There is much much more out there... Teke^(talk) 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Yes! Great observation. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

57. Support -- worthy admin candidate. - Longhair 03:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
58. Support: not even close in my book. theProject 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
59. Very Strong Support Hoopydink is an excellent user, and I'm so glad that he's going for the tools. He's an excellent presence on RC patroll, and a great, knowledgeable editor. I have no problems supporting him. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Due to the high esteem in which this user is held, I will wave my standard of at least 200 user-talk edits. Themindset 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor. Besides, his username continues to be an endless source of amusement for my child-like mind! :) Hoopydink... giggle... Xoloz 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. G.He 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. User is well experienced and is willing to do work for the community. Tarret 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per his Contributions _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
65. Absolute, yet unnecessary Support, despite our recent disagreement. :-). Cheers, and good luck, — Werdna talk criticism 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
66. Of course Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Great user, great vandal-fighter. --Nishkid64 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per above and answers to questions. Great user, excellent vandal-stomper. :D --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
69. Wish I had found this earlier pile on support --james^(talk) 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
70. Support - User appears to be sane. Sane people tend to be good administrators. Therefore, Hoopy will make a good administrator. —this is messedrocker (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
71. I'm always late to the party Support - I see this guy all over, "What, he's not an admin yet"? etc etc. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
72. Support, I think Hoopydink will use the tools well. --- Deville (Talk) 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
73. Support Yet another "he's not an admin yet???" vote. NawlinWiki 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
74. I-thought-I-already-supported-this-RfA-but-on-second-check-I-hadn't support - Daniel.Bryant 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Good Editor with a a lot of great work behind him Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
76. Support. Can be trusted with the tools. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
77. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
78. Support per nom, answers, and comments above. Quality user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
79. Support. Worthy contributor and countervandal. Heimstern Läufer 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
80. Support - a strong editor, no concerns whatsoever. Rockpocket 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
81. Support —Xyrael / 08:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
82. Support --Robdurbar 09:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
83. Cleared for Adminship Great vandal fighting work. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
84. Support °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
85. 'Support. -- Steel 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
86. Support another fine candidate. Long history of exactly the right kind of stuff. Guy 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
87. Support would make a really good admin. -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
88. Support— I think I'm safe in congratulating you on making it! Use your Wikipowers thoughtfully and well! Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

    And if you didn't already realize it, a post facto conomination by Crzrussian is noteworthy. Williamborg (Bill) 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

89. Pile-on Support. I have nothing but good experience of this editor who I am sure will be a great admin. --Guinnog 11:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
90. Support haz (talk) e
91. Support An excellent editor who is calm, civil and well suited to becoming an admin. Welcome aboard. Gwernol 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
92. Support. Excellent answers, excellent summary usage, civil user, could do great things. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
93. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
94. Support. Seriously...I thought he already was one. 1ne 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
95. Support. Does good work. AnnH ♫ 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to interactions on IRC, and from what I've seen there, Hoopydink is not civil. Thats not exactly what we want for admins. ILovePlankton 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for participating in my RfA, ILovePlankton! Your comments are both welcomed and appreciated. I'm fairly certain you're referring to my limited interaction with a recently banned user, which I believed to be appropriate. If this is the case, then I appreciate you bringing this up, and if not, I apologise for assuming otherwise (I'd also like to mention that I've been entrusted as an operator on #wikipedia, the primary Wikipedia IRC channel). Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per ILP. I will reiterate my oppose even if it gets deleted. Whether or not the user is blocked, it is irrelevant. The point here is that Hoopydink completely personally attacked another user without reason (on IRC) and even sent a negatively worded threatening e-mail (I can paste this on my userpage with addresses deleted to prove my point if I need to). There is no excuse to personally attack someone, regardless of what the issue is - whether you don't like someone (again without knowing them, this cannot be fair), heard bad things about them (again without asking them for verification, this cannot be fair), or whatever, you just don't personally attack someone OR send them harassing e-mails. Harassment doesn't make a good admin. Being calm, level-headed, approachable, trying to remain neutral in the midst of issues that don't directly involve you, that makes a good admin. Enkil 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

   This is User:Enkil's only edit. Gwernol 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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.