Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dabomb87

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

Dabomb87

Final (188/0/1); Closed by Rlevse at 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) – Dabomb87 is an extraordinarily helpful editor who has proven willing to do some of the drudge work that many other editors avoid. He has a solid understanding of WP policy and how it relates to article content. In his work as a featured list director, he has demonstrated an ability to judge consensus as well as the even more important–and challenging–ability to be helpful and polite if his decisions are questioned [1]. His WP:FAC reviews are invaluable and always based in policy and a true wish to help improve the article. These two roles–reviewer and director–are some of the hardest to do successfully on this project, because one often contributes to crushing another editor's dream that an article/list is perfect. Dabomb handles these situations extremely well; his focus is always on constructive actions that can be taken rather than demeaning the existing content/effort. Furthermore, Dabomb recognizes when he doesn't have the knowledge or skills to make a decision and reaches out for futher opinions [2]. This self-awareness is critical in an environment where admins may not be fully exposed to every area where the tools can be used. In short, I have full confidence in Dabomb87's judgement, and I believe he will be an excellent administrator. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb87 is one of a rare group of quietly knowledgeable and helpful editors who is everywhere all the time doing anything he can to help out, whether on a large or trivial scale, and with careful and thorough consiousness and civility. It is unfortunate that he was tangled into the whole date-delinking issue, but that was well over a year ago and his exemplary work has continued and increased since then. I have no doubt he will be a real asset to the admin corp, and co-nom this RFA with pleasure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and am grateful to Karanacs and SandyGeorgia for their support and trust. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would start out with the areas with which I am most familiar. For the past two years, I have been active at the Featured lists and Featured articles processes. A lot of what I there do can be described as "dirty work": keeping FAC/FAR and FLC/FLRC running smoothly by taking care of the mundane meta-issues so that other content editors and reviewers can do what they do best. In the past I have encountered numerous "housekeeping" situations where the tools would have been useful; these are usually uncontroversial tasks such as deleting unused pages, moving pages over redirects, and editing protected pages to make minor formatting fixes. More recently, I have had to deal with sockpuppetry at FLC.

In addition, I am an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association, and have many athlete BLPs on my watchlist. Even in the offseason, I regularly deal with editors who insert unsourced speculation, BLP violations, or plain vandalism into these articles. To this end, the tools could be useful to ensure that these articles remain high-quality. In particular, the ability to protect would come in handy when it is necessary to prevent further disruption. Obviously, I would never use the tools in situations where I am or have been involved.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm proud of any edit that aids our effort to collect the sum of human knowledge into one reference work. My rather small list of articles to which I've made substantial contributions is at User:Dabomb87/Contributions. As far as "audited" content goes, I have written or co-written four list articles that have achieved FL status. With regard to normal articles, I am particularly proud of my work on Tim Donaghy. I was by no means the primary contributor to that article, but I made quite a few additions and copy-edits to bring it up to GA status and keep it up to date. I have also created or expanded five articles that have been featured at DYK. Edited slightly at 03:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

However, even more than my admittedly meager content creation and addition work, I am proud of my reviews at FAC, FLC, peer review, and (on a significantly lower level) GA in the past two years. You can my complete list of reviews here. I like to think I've played a tiny role in polishing our best work on Wikipedia.

On the meta side of things, I've been one of the Featured list delegates/directors for a year now, which (hopefully) indicates that I am trusted and experienced enough to be a fair judge of consensus as it relates to policies, guidelines and the FL criteria. In addition to my work at the featured content processes, I have engaged in varied activities such as vandal patrol (although not recently), helping out at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, and, to a limited extent, new-page patrol.

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: From about October 2008 to June 2009, I was involved in the infamous date-linking drama, considered to be (with good reason) one of the lamest disputes ever. Even though the matter was eventually resolved through an ArbCom case in the first half of 2009, my behavior in the months leading up to the case (October–December 2008) was less than stellar, which is probably an understatement. The links and diffs at Wikipedia:ARBDATE#Dabomb87 illustrate my actions well enough. My primary offenses were extensive edit-warring and engaging in cabalism to push through a certain style, which were, without a doubt, the worst way to approach dispute resolution. I dealt with that conflict in the worst way possible, and fully acknowledge it was unbecoming of any experienced editor, let alone an administrator.

Since that nightmare, I have become more diplomatic in my approach to conflict, and am far more level-headed and open to compromise than before. I learned a lot from the dates saga, and think that my experience and missteps there have helped me to avoid subsequent edit wars and long, protracted disputes. One area where I have substantially improved is responding to stressful situations. In a recent situation, a user believed that I had improperly closed his FLC nomination, suggesting that I had a "double-standard", and stating that I did not "deserve to be a director for anything here". I feel that my response there was calm and civil, and my subsequent handling of the case (I requested review of my action by the FL community, which was unanimously endorsed) helped to defuse any possible conflict.

Additional optional question from BigDom

4. Wikipedia claims that its goal is to collate all human knowledge into one encyclopaedia. However, through guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, its editors have decided that the majority of human knowledge is not "notable" enough for inclusion. What is your view on this apparent hypocrisy?

A: I don't think the notability standards and the ultimate goal of Wikipedia conflict quite as much one might think. Instead, I think our notability guidelines (and related policies and guidelines such as WP:NOT) qualify the stated goal. If by "knowledge" you mean all things, ideas, events, facts that exist or have happened, then no, this encylopedia is not completely compatible with that aim. However, I think Wikipedia's goal is to contain any information that is likely to help the reader and is worth mention. Our policies and guidelines define what is "worth mention".

Additional optional question from Kraftlos

5. You have a block on your record from last year that appears to have involved ArbCom. Could you elaborate on what happened there and if you made mistakes how you have corrected them?

A: Sure. At the time, the Arbitration Committee had issued an injunction against "mass date (de)linking to prevent further edit-warring", which had led to the case's (which I mentioned in question 3) opening in the first place. In March 2009, I made single edit which included removing some date links from an article. As I explained here and in the subsequent thread, I never intended to make another similar edit and therefore believed my edit did not fall afoul of the injunction. The blocking administrator disagreed with my interpretation, and blocked me. Later on, another (neutral) administrator unblocked me in light of my unblock request and as I did not intend to cause "further disruption". In hindsight, I accept that my edit probably violated the spirit, if not the lettter, of the injunction and it would have been better to request clarification of the injunction before actually making the edit. In general, it is always good practice to seek clarification/consensus on talk before making possibly substantial or controversial changes, and I think I've done a better job of this since then.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

6. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: I don't know if "orders" is the right word (binding demands, maybe?). Admins definitely should not unilaterally force other editors to do something; sysops are just experienced users who have been trusted with and granted a few extra tools. Bans, when not issued by Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee, should always be agreed on by the community. Admins often do implement these community decisions because they have the technical means (block button, for site bans) and are trusted to correctly communicate the situation to the user who is being restricted.

If I encountered a dispute involving a disruptive user (assuming I'm uninvolved), proposing a ban of any kind would probably be one of my last options. The goal is to stop the other editor's disruption while allowing them to continue their constructive contributions. If, however, multiple good-faith efforts to "rehabilitate" the user have been in vain (e.g., user RfC, talk page discussions), then I would consider proposing a ban. If the editor's unhelpful edits were concentrated in one area or directed towards one or two editors, then a topic ban or interaction ban would be appropriate. If the editor is generally disruptive in all areas of the encyclopedia, then I would consider a site ban. I would propose a ban at WP:AN, WP:ANI (or somewhere similarly high-traffic), and if the consensus favors it, then another neutral editor would implement the decision.

Additional optional question from Sandman888

7 Banning is an either-or question. In your opinion, and judging solely from available facts, was the arbitration comittee right in unbanning W.A. after he mass-spammed wikipedia or should he remain banned? Full story.

A: The editor's actions were a serious violation of WP:POINT (not to mention highly unethical), and the massive disruption outweighs any perceived benefit from this experiment. That West.andrew.g did not reply to Versageek's initial note throws serious doubt on his suitability to conduct an experiment on Wikipedia, where transparency and communication is paramount. Having said that, I don't think ArbCom is being too soft on him, given that he has promised to abide by their strict restrictions upon returning to Wikipedia, and follows community norms. Of course, if he shows any sign of returning to his old editing behavior, I would fully support an indefinite block without any further thought.

Additional optional question from Gimmetoo

8. You find a non-admin account with a username similar to an admin account, with a note on its user page saying it is an alternate of the admin account. After some searching, you don't find any edits from the admin account to the non-admin account that would confirm the non-admin account as an alternate. The admin account has not edited in months. Do you block the non-admin account as a potential imposter until it is confirmed by the admin account? Explain why or why not with reference to any policies you think relevant. If not, state what you would do.

A: I'm not going to feign ignorance here; I'm well aware of the actual situation that probably prompted you to ask this question, and will my frame my answer in that context. Here's my take: the behavioral evidence alone—edits to pop-culture related articles (especially Brenda Song), your work with Portal:Heraldry, and the fact that you followed GimmeBot around cleaning up talk pages after the bot runs—ruled out all but the most skilled impostor, the chances of which are quite low. Therefore, considering that you and the dormant 'trow account were not being disruptive (which is usually the requirement for blocking), the correct thing to do (IMO) would have been to ask you (on 'too's talk page) to log in with the admin account and confirm the connection. Now, to be fair, your initial response to the block (somewhat understandable) was not the most helpful; instead of focusing on the alleged impropriety of the block, you could have calmly explained that special circumstances prevented you from logging in with 'trow, and that editors could email you instead to confirm the connection, and that might have prevented more trouble and drama. In summary, in those circumstances, I would have pursued the usual communication channels first (talk page, email). If you had continued to edit without responding, then I probably would have blocked because clearly things would have looked fishy. In general, good-faith efforts to communicate should precede blocking, unless there is an imminent threat to the encyclopedia (e.g., the Gimmetrow account had been compromised and used for disruption, or your edits were clearly that of another person). WP:BLOCK says we should block only to prevent disruption, and I don't think disruption was going on in your case. That said, I don't fault the blocking admin(s) for their actions, since they were probably less familiar with you and your edits than I may be.

General comments

• Links for Dabomb87: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dabomb87 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Wow, 63 supports in 6 hours? Might be a record. —Soap— 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Been waiting for this one. Good luck! Courcelles 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support I feel truly lucky to have spent so many months working with Dabomb87 (mainly at FLC), he's the most dedicated Wikipedian I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, bar none. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Jujutacular ^talk 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Of course —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
6. (too many people supporting this candidate × 3) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
7. iridescent 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
8. This user should definitely become an administrator. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Took you long enough to submit this. Happy to support. NW (Talk) 18:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Looks fine to me. Tommy! [message] 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Have been waiting for this. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. Bit of a no-brainer decision. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support no-brainer —Chris!_c/t 18:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - I admire people that can admit they have made mistakes in the past, and learn from them. If the mop will help you in your work, I'm happy to support you. Jusdafax 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
15. I've made a big deal about X!'s edit counter in the last few days, and look forward to reviewing my neutral !votes tomorrow. That said, I don't need the counter for this one, as I'm very familiar with Dabomb's contributions. His record generally speaks for itself, but what I will add is that he has that rare balance of being forthright about his opinions, while at the same time being one of the most level-headed editors on the site. --WFC-- 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Note: Double vote, this user voted oppose later

16. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Yesyesyes. Extraordinary user and brilliant work in both writing, reviewing, and directing the reviewing of our best content. —fetch·comms 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
18. So that I don't have to correct all the TFAs anymore. Ucucha 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
20. (Edit conflict) Support. I've run across Dabomb on several occasions in the WP:FLC process and in every instance I've interacted with him, he has come through as professional and dedicated to his work on Wikipedia. That he can admit that the whole date-linking business was a silly mistake is impressive, and I'm glad that he's learned from his past. I'm incredibly happy to support such an outstanding editor and I wish him luck as an administrator. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support -- Эlcobbola _talk 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support without reservation.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Can have no qualms about supporting such a well-qualified editor. Like the carefully considered answer to my question. BigDom 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support. I don't see any reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
25. You mean he isn't already? --Dweller (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Definitely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support 'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
28. ••Pepper•• 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Absolutely I thought you already had the mop. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Hell yes! I could never work out why the f*ck you weren't one already, but I'm glad we now have a chance to put that right and, having seen you on several pages I stalk and on my very occasional excursion to FLC, I support without hesitation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Well, duh! No concerns whatsoever that he'd abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Arguably one of the best candidates we've ever had. Dabomb is civil, professional, intelligent, helpful, and diligent at his work, not to mention that he's very humble and works behind the scenes. ceranthor 20:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Support - I've only seen good work from you. Airplaneman ✈ 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Support, solid long time contributor with a need for the buttons. Anything to help with the basketball BLPs come playoff time... :) Kuru (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Among the most productive contributors to Wikipedia. Shame we had to wait so long for this nomination, but better late than never, I guess. This IP is used by Juliancolton because I'm effectively retired. If you want proof, email my main account, but please don't indent this. I will consider any such action in violation of WP:POINT. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Julian, please explain why your considering yourself "effectively retired" gives you the right to break the rules. IPs don't get to vote in RfA. If you still wish to participate in RfA, please use your account or create a new one. Keepscases (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Meh, so he's breaking the letter of the law, but the spirit is to keep totally unregistered editors from !voting. I don't have a problem with it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

37. Support. Mike Christie (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Request Dabomb87 can be a bit abrasive. I support as long as he/she promises to him/herself to be less abrasive and not be a bomb. He/she is not abrasive enough for me to oppose. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support Not abrasive like before. People can change! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

39. Connormah 20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support The nominators put it better than I can. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
41. Support. While not knowing this user well, I've encountered them recently in the FL area. Seems a reasonable editor with a long term commitment to the project. I've seen no issues, and it would seem, no one else ↓↓ has either. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Secret ^account 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Support No doubt about it. Dabomb87 is very helpful. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Mkativerata (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Strong support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Assumed you were one. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Definitely dedicated and adds to the project. No concerns here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Support Without hesitation.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Strong support (ecx3) DAMN YOU SANDYGEORGIA... Dabomb was on my radar from last year! Unfortunately, when I was reviewing him last year I realized that the incident he discussed above would have precluded him from passing RfA (I think bomb and I had a short convo about it back then.) I've been planning on re-reviewing bomb ever since then. But I have nothing but respect from my personal interactions with him and his dedication (at least at the time) to the FLC process.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    With help of DaBomb, I found the RfA that I actually wrote for him last year. Here is part of my original nom, When reviewing his talk page, I can't help but be impressed with his edits to newbies who know almost nothing about WP and with his responses to respected veterans such as SandyGeorgia and Rlevse. In every case, the person he communicates with shows a degree of respect for Dabomb and he treats them with the class and dignity we hope for from an admin. Unfortunately, last week Dabomb learned of the evils that are Huggle, I'm hoping to break that addiction before it is even started by introducing him to the corruption that is Adminship ;-) Ok, in all seriousness, Dabomb is exactly the type of candidate whom I think we need more of in adminship. While his main area of interests are FAC/FLC/GAN/PR/MOS (areas whose primary concern is the improvement of wp), he does have contributions to AFD/ANI/AIV/ArbCOM. He doesn't necessarily want to become an admin, but I completely trust that if he uses the tools even once, it will be for the betterment of Wikipedia. I cannot see Dabomb ever abusing the tools and fully trust him to seek out guidance when necessary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

50. Support Thoughtful and hardworking candidate ;) Aiken ♫ 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Support   — Jeff G.  ツ 22:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. Very helpful, great work ethic, has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. The endorsements from highly-respected editors really helps too. -- œ^™ 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Support good candidate. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
54. Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support Of course. --John (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
56. Support This one's a no-brainer. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
57. Support Good choice and good luck...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
58. Of course - strong candidate, no concerns that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
59. Yes, please. Helpful and experienced editor who no doubt will make a good admin. Jafeluv (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Support Broad and deep level of experience; cerebral answers; well-qualified for the mop--Hokeman (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
61. Support Very strong candidate. I've no doubt he'll use the mop well. Shimeru 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
62. Support - I've been waiting for this to go live. Will make a great admin. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Support - No objections from me. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support - I dealt with this user at FLC, and he was very helpful and knowledgeable.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Without a doubt. Skomorokh 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Strong support - extremely trustworthy candidate who will put the mop to good use. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
67. A not incompetent not nitwit. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Strong Support: Worked with this user on my FAC, good user, very knowledgable, give that man a mop. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Why did this RFA take so long to happen?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
70. Support Looks good, best of luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
71. Strong support YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
72. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
73. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
74. Support -- Although I can actually empathise with Dabomb's action that led to his brief block, he displays maturity in acknowledging that he would act differently now. He makes a substantial contribution to many areas of the 'pedia and I have no doubt that the tools would broaden his contributions further. A trustworthy candidate. --RexxS (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
75. Support--MONGO 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
76. Support Mature and acts with reason. Greg L (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
77. sans aucun doute --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
78. Support. Tiderolls 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
79. Answer to Question 2 starts with an incredibly cheesy half-sentence, but support nonetheless. Esteffect (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
80. Support You've got some good people on your side, and while I don't think I've ever seen you around, I trust many of these users. upstateNYer 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
81. Support excellent reviews at FAC and, well, everywhere. Hope you continue them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
82. Support Glad I checked the RFA page! Abecedare (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
83. Support – Yes. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
84. Support. Easy one.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
85. Looks good. sonia♫ 06:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
86. Support. Although I have long forgotten the way to FA section, my past recollections were of a hard-working editor who will be even more efficient with the admin tools. Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
87. Support Jmlk17 06:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
88. Support Easiest call I've ever made on here. T (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
89. Support No concerns.  Begoon^talk 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
90. Support per the nudge I gave in July and per many of the above, particularly Ealdgyth. Bencherlite^Talk 09:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
91. - filelakeshoe 09:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
92. Support - Solid editor with a good focus on building the encyclopedia. Was worried about the block, but his explanation makes sense. That date-delinking thing seemed like a nightmare. Good luck! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
93. Support. At this point it's just pile-on support, but I thought the responses to the questions were great, contributions look good, and the willingness to learn from - and acknowledge - past mistakes is extremely good. TFOWR 12:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
94. One of those instantly recognizable names that go up at RfA where the gut reaction is to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
95. Support - I'll pile on too. We tend to be active in different areas, but every time I've seen Dabomb87's edits they've been effective and professional. Firmly rooted in policy, without being pedantic. I like that. bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
96. Support - This level of involvement in FL and FAC shows a high regard by the community as a whole and respect among other experienced editors for policy and content building. People do make mistakes but 2008 and the date delinking saga are quite a time ago and the explanations given convincingly suggest Dabomb learned from them. Sometimes the very best editors only get that way by making really messy mistakes, which they ultimately learn from; enough time has passed that if there were lapses they would probably be listed below by now. I have no doubt of his merits and ability to enhance the project as an admin - if this RFA passes as it looks like it may, then go easy on the tools and ask if needed! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
97. Support Per pretty much everyone else. Resolute 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    Staking my claim: if anyone takes No. 100 from me, I will whack them with a wet noodle! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    Is it just one wet noodle? ;-) -- Mentifisto 14:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe 100 would be better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    Half way tempted to remove my support so that Sandy ends up being number 99! ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

98. Oh alright, Sandy, I've been hovering here with a mouse for 20 minutes, but I'm really afraid of wet noodles! Support.--Kudpung (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
99. Support. Kablammo (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
100. Support (what's the opposite of a wet noodle? Kablammo gets one!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

     A dry noodle. Ucucha 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

101. Support. Definitely! Laurinavicius (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
102. Support Not only he handled disputes, but with four featured lists, I'm sure he understands what an encyclopedia is. Minimac (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
103. Support – Wish all of my FAC/FLC reviews were this easy... Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
104. Support Totally, he is a very helpful person and he should really become admin fast. Come on he has like freaking 70 likes and ZERO neutrals or against that should be enough to promote him to admin! CJISBEAST (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
105. Support Might as well pile on. WP:300 anyone? :) LittleMountain5 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
106. Support – I don't need to say much else. I've been him at FAC and has done a tremendous job coordinating and running stuff over there. –MuZemike 15:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
107. Support – Definitely a net plus. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
108. Support. I figure I'd better, since this looks to be so close! But seriously, this is a textbook example of where a past block should not be any cause for concern at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
109. Support. Unomi (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
110. Support—I have no doubts that this editor will make a fine administrator. –Grondemar 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
111. Support Completely familiar with this editor due to FAC and FLC. I don't !vote in these often, and even though it's a pile-on at this point, I still want to voice my support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
112. Support Good choice! Zagalejo^^^ 17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
113. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
114. Support - helpful and trustworthy user. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
115. Support - Why not, this bandwagon seems comfy enough. -- Atama頭 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
116. Support I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
117. Support per 69.121.245.182. Ben MacDui 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
118. Support. A small blot should not be a barrier to adminship. I'm sure Dabomb has learnt from the experience and has become a better editor as a result. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
119. Trust the one RfA I want to participate in to happen when I am away. I would love to write an extensive rationale of all the excellent qualities Dabomb87 brings to Wikipedia. I only hope that the fantastic non-admin contributions this user makes will not be lost in the seemingly inevitible success of this RfA. By using the tools even half as well as you have worked without them would be a massive benefit to the community. To summarise: Big support. Rambo's Revenge II (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)10 (UTC)
120. Support. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
121. Support. Dedicated and skilled. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
122. Support. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
123. Da bomb is comin'! :) Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
124. I heard about this RfA from somebody, and I'm coming out of retirement to support it. Dabomb is an incredibly dedicated and skilled editor. I don't really have much more to add, but all I can say is that the tools would be put to very good maintenance work in his hands. Strongly supporting... +sysop has been long due. JamieS93 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
125. Another real cliffhanger RfA, I can see. I'd better get my support in before I forget. —Soap— 23:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
126. Support. Definitely. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
127. Support Huge dedication to the project, and great edits. Yes, that was a lame dispute, and the lame ones it seems can bring out the worst in any us. Dabomb has been doing a great job. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
128. Support. Bwrs (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
129. Seraphim♥ 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
130. Yes Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
131. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
132. Support. One of the most prolific high-quality editors I've seen in my time without any actions that I have seen as objectionable. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
133. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
134. Support He's not an admin? oO ResMar 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
135. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
136. Support. He wasn't an admin already? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
137. Support. I've seen Dabomb in FAC and FLC. Excellent user. This is a somewhat belated RfA I should say. All the best, Dabomb87.--Chanaka L (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
138. Support. A dedicated and prolific editor—no problems at all.  HWV258.  08:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
139. Yes. SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
140. Support Why aren't you already an admin? ;) Bejinhan talks 11:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
141. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC) No spam please
142. Support Thought he already was one. Rje (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
143. Support very good editor. Shiva (Visnu) 14:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
144. Support - yep. - eo (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
145. Support - Shows enough intelligence to use the tools properly and without undue haste. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
146. Support - Graham Colm (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
147. Support I see no issues. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
148. Yes please Competent and clueful. — KV5 • Talk • 16:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
149. Support of course. Mister sparky (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
150. Support - Skilled and dedicated editor. Has made many great contributions to Wikipedia. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
151. Support. History of constructive editing outweighs one indiscretion. --PinkBull 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
152. Seems good to me. No problem supporting. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
153. Support Good answers. Involved in a lame edit war which is kind of troubling but seems to have learned from it. I view that more as a positive given the time. Ryan Norton 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
154. Support User may of had a bit of a rough past, but looks like they have come around since any issues. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
155. Support Risker (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
156. Support - yes please. A good editor and will be a good admin. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
157. No alarms here. GedUK  11:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
158. Support, obviously. Swarm^Talk 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
159. Support- why not? Seems to be an excellent Wikpedian. Reyk _YO! 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
160. Coming-out-of-retirement Support. Dabomb87 is one of the nicest and most helpful people on Wikipedia. In my opinion he is too good to give it away for free, however, it's his choice and I wish him all the best. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC) And now, backing out of the funny farm again.
161. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
162. I have no reason to think s/he'd abuse the tools, so I have no reason to oppose. Good editor overall, so sure, why not? Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
163. Support, yes, great contributor, great candidate. Certainly. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
164. Support - has a thorough understanding of the article-writing process from both sides of the aisle, a strong synthesis of policy and common sense, and a general courteousness in all of his dealings. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
165. Looks good. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
166. Support. I've met him in FLC several times. A dedicated user who has always been pleasant and helpful in my dealing's with him. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
167. Support no reason to oppose seems like a very experienced user. Inka 888 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
168. Utter no-brainer. :)  f o x  16:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
169. Support User is regularly involved in FAC noms. from my observations. The tools could come in handy to help him close in favour as well. CycloneGU (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

     Just to clarify, I don't need the tools for regular FLC closures, but for the various other housekeeping things I do from time to time. It's worth noting that SandyGeorgia, the FAC delegate, is not an administrator (although she might as well be one). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

     I was forecasting deeper involvement in FACs. If my presumption is mistaken, forgive me. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

170. Support. See no reason to believe editor will abuse tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
171. Support—Apart from the maturity and dedication, he has a flare for compromise. This is an excellent attribute in an admin. Tony (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
172. Support - Excellent editor; I have no concerns! ---kilbad (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
173. Support I have absolutely no doubt that this editor will make an excellent admin Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
174. Support I've known DB87 since his starting days at FLC, from his editing days to his FLC directing, and am 100% confident that he will make an excellent admin. Forgot to say thanks for the welcoming me back! :D --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
175. Oppose, I won't support candidates without at least G edits, and I'm a bit concerned about the lull in activity in early 2008. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC).
176. Support Long overdue Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
177. Support nice fellow. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
178. Support Reviewed talk, skimmed the question answers... looks like a good candidate who admits their mistakes and learns from them. Will be a good admin. Townlake (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
179. Support Admittedly a pile-on, and wholly unnecessary, but nevertheless a great editor who will be an asset to the project.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
180. Support Has learned from past mistakes. --Banana (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
181. Support -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
182. Support. I say Dabomb's experienced enough for this. Endofskull (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
183. Support. Sure, I'm piling on at this point, but it never hurts. — ξ^xplicit 19:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
184. Strong Support: A great candidate in every way. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
185. I am still pissed off about that terminally boring Annie Hall thing by the inappropriately libidinous Woody Allen beating out Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope for the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture in 1977. As my contribution to the effort to restore balance to the sum of good karma in the universe, I Support this candidate...Now if Sandy would just run,we might start to do something about the stain left by the evil that is Yoko Ono. • Ling.Nut 06:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
186. Support. Looks like a fine candidate. — Xcalizorz (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
187. Support Absolutely. Woody (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
188. Support - excellent candidate. Surprised s/he isn't a sysop already. Rlendog (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Not impressed. --A3RO (mailbox) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind giving us a specific reason? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No. --A3RO (mailbox) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through the contributions of the above user and believe he is a troll. I advocate an indefinite block and a removal of his oppose.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet somehow he has reviewer and rollback... hmmmm... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

*Yawn* Zzzz... (-.-) --A3RO (mailbox) 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked for a week.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I say, leave the “oppose”. This page was looking like a freakish contrivance with all those “support” votes and zero “oppose” votes. It is to Dabomb’s credit that the only “oppose” vote (so far) was from a troll who got blocked for a week. It’s a badge of honor. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering changing my votes, on the grounds that there are too many admins; also, like Greg, I dislike that this appears to be turning into the sort of landslide which gives me the creeps. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Changing your votes"? Is that an admission of sockpuppetry, Ohconfucius? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a block is in order. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ugh! I've been found out! Freudian slip, perhaps ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User can still cast a valid !vote. They're not banned. Swarm^Talk 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They are currently blocked. Consensus is in favor of removing the vote, please undo your action.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is this so-called consensus? And where is the policy that demands that the votes of blocked users should be struck out? Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note the views expressed here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would advise against any further comment on the matter as this is exactly what the troll desires.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

← Vote indented per my comment here. –xeno^talk 13:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose doesn't meet my very high RFA standards. Citybrand (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — Citybrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My sockpuppet alarm just went off... He has made a few edits to AFD immediately after it was created. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mine too! Graham Colm (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Could a checkuser help us out here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that's necessary. Aiken ♫ 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh great, now we're blocking and striking every single oppose, to further intimidate any other opposers? 59.139.29.107 (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be very wary of blocking dissenters, or any actions that give the appearance of blocking dissenters, in a place like RfA. If you think somebody's ineligible to !vote or is !voting maliciously, better just to say why (calmly) and let somebody else decide how much weight the !vote should hold... no? bobrayner (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This quacks like the false flag sockpuppet, probably trying to impersonate A3RO. –xeno^talk 19:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP now admits to being a proxy. I knew that it was a proxy, but chose not to mention it because it would seem like we were indeed blocking all those who opposed, and because there are some legitimate proxies out there. Since he went on to vandalize, next time I won't be so timid. —Soap— 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. To make sockpuppet(s) feel better. --WFC-- 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the best RfA ever. hah :) Tommy! [message] —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 19 August 2010.

Fake Oppose. We need something down here. I mean, it's a 99% pass so far. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fake badgering. Badger Badger Badger. TFOWR 08:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given that all the opposes so far are indented, it's a 100% pass ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The troll doesn't count? Don't rob Dabomb of this badge of honor. CycloneGU (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, but I have seen nothing from this editor in the past except minor changes and tweaks to articles created by others, many of which were unconstructive. The only reason I'm not opposing him is the fact that some contributors I respect are supporting him - therefore I'm prepared to be convinced he may have changed his ways since the date-linking dispute. Deb (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

   I am also dismayed by Dabomb87's comment in the opposed section where he says "blocked as a sockpuppet" At this rate, nobody who is not insane is going to oppose. As far as Wikipedia rules, the sockpuppet rule says that if sockpuppetry is suspected, the election should go on and sockpuppetry issues ruled on after the election. An administrator hopeful, such as Dabomb87, should be aware of Wikipedia rules, especially in his own RFA. On the other hand, I would be very, very impressed if Dabomb87 commented on the oppose and cited the above rule. What we don't want is some editor who doesn't edit many mainspace edits and just pats all the admins on the back, laughing, and clowning around. Also to be fair, I've supported Dabomb but asked that he look at his temperment and I am happy to report that his temperment lately is better than before - good! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Hi, perhaps I'm missing something but User:Citybrand has been confirmed as a sockpuppet by a checkuser (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Citybrand/Archive#20 August 2010). The opposer was blocked by an admin (obviously), and the !vote was indented by somebody else. I was merely commenting on the state of things. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   At this point, I don't care how many sockpuppets show up - even combined they would not bring down this RfA. It appears to be a success. Too bad we can't close early on the succees side! Or can we? CycloneGU (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   No, and that's intentional; some editors only log in once a week on their day off, and that seven days is to allow people to come forward with evidence of a particularly serious problem/a particularly good piece of work which might cause current supporters/opposers to reconsider. (It does occasionally happen.) – iridescent 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Very true. But I doubt it'll do much here with two days to go. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2010 (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.