Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmies

Drmies

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (135/1/2); Scheduled to end 04:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Drmies (talk · contribs) – I have been working with Drmies here for some time now. He is a great content contributor, having created many articles and done a great deal of cleanup of unreferenced BLPs - both in referencing and expanding those that can be, and in nominating for deletion those that do not meet notability standards. He is very active at WP:DYK, nominating not only his own articles, but other new articles he notices, and helping with the review process. He has two Good Articles to his credit, and has helped get a Featured List and a Featured Article promoted. While some editors pick a niche of content creation or fighting vandalism, Drmies slides well from one to the other, and having the admin toolkit will help with his work. He helps out new editors and veteran, and has a good sense of humor about it all. LadyofShalott 03:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Lady, thank you for your kind words. I accept. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2011 (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: Since I'm pretty active looking at recent changes, tagging for CSD and looking at vandalism (besides looking for interesting articles and welcoming new users), I will take that one step further. That is, I expect to delete the occasional article and block the occasional IP. I used to be more active at AfD than I am these days, but closing AfD discussions is another area of interest. What I won't do yet is close AfDs like this one. Then there's minor things one can do with a mop that make life easier, such as requested moves; I would be checking in much more on those pages. Also, I'm a big fan of userfication (I may have one or two in my own space) and will gladly userfy (about-to-be-)deleted articles. And of course I want to block Mr. Wales and delete the main page.

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

A: An FL, Kronos Quartet discography, and an FA, Green children of Woolpit; I'm pretty proud of them, and of two recent GAs. I'm really proud of Greyhound Bus Station (Montgomery, Alabama): the museum opens tomorrow. Hooding was not fun, but I felt it was important. I helped out on Bacon Explosion, a high hitter at DYK, that was fun. I have over 150 DYK articles right now and that tickles me. But the funnest things are those articles that seem to go nowhere. Once upon a time, I looked at Unthanksgiving Day and thought it a bunch of boloney, too weird to be true, and nominated it as a hoax--then I looked into it some more (which I should have done in the first place), corrected myself, and with the help of some others it was a DYK shortly afterward--I don't mind being proven wrong. Oh, Key Largo Woodrat, also a DYK, with User:Ucucha, that was a ton of fun, even after User:Gatoclass busted me.

Working with new editors and getting a DYK template on their talk page (here, for instance) is really exciting. Occasionally I try to mediate a bit, and once or twice that worked (don't ask me for the diffs--I forget the good sooner than the bad). With the new DYK rules I'm also more active there; I try to tread lightly, though, and gladly gain advice from others. I try to be a team player.

I'm a writer of content, a copy editor, a proofreader, a supplier of references, though I admit I need all the help I can get reading my own copy (that's why I supply User:Mandarax with beer). If it hadn't been for the help of others (esp. Malleus), those two GAs wouldn't have happened, and the green children wouldn't have been promoted.

Whether any of my edits in the immediate future will be any good depends in part on what Keepscases has to ask, of course.

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: Hmm. The most recent case was at Clan of Xymox, which ended with one editor and his socks being indefinitely blocked (another one popped up last week). The most serious one was over a year ago with a wanna-be politician, whose article I NPOVed and subsequently nominated for deletion. It became laughable when they called me at work (!) and yelled at me. I was trolled recently, which started here and was continued by a sock of theirs. That was not fun, and I like to think that I walked away early enough--but it's always best to walk away even sooner.

I was mildly unnerved over a discussion at User talk:Freakshownerd, which in hindsight was a confrontation floating in a sea of irony, and walked away from that one too. NeutralHomer and I used to duke it out, and I wasn't always as friendly as I should have been, but we worked it out and have reached agreement over some content/BLP issues on articles for TV stations (Homer, we still need to write that up!). I've had many article content disputes, and have learned from past experiences that sometimes it's best to walk away (though I feel strongly about BLPs): there's millions more articles, and one more bad article (bad in my righteous opinion, of course) won't matter much; my time and energy are better spent working on others. Wikistress is not fun; I try to avoid it by avoiding it earlier than I did years ago. In general, though, I have very pleasant interactions with many of the great editors here, and the good far, far outweighs the bad.

Additional question from Intoronto1125

4. Using the edit summary box is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement why or why not?

A: I think in most cases using the edit summary box is very necessary, if only so an editor can keep track of what they did in their own edits, particularly when multiple editors are working on the same article. But most importantly, this is a collaborative project and unless an editor owns the article (which they don't) they should keep other editors abreast of what they're doing and give arguments or explanations for their edits, esp. when removing information. Tacitly, I think a lot of Recent changes patrollers are more likely to call removal of content 'vandalism' if that removal is unexplained, and "rv unexplained changes" is a pretty decent argument for a lot of reverts. But it also depends on the circumstances--you'll not find a lot of edit summaries in this history, but then I started that article and was working on it by myself for a while.

Additional question from Atama

5. I know this will come off as a silly question but I have to ask... How is your username pronounced? Is it like "Doctor Mice" or "Durr-meez"?

A: Not silly at all, /et ɘ mɑ/ (sorry--whose mother?). It's kind of in between: calling me 'Doctor /mis/'--'Doctor mees'?--is just fine, but I also answer to "liefste papa van de wereld."

... which, in Dutch, means "sweetest father in the world". Ucucha 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

6. Please describe how you would feel if Jimbo Wales supported your RfA, commenting in strong favor of your conduct and potential?

A: Fo shizzle? Honestly, I'm surprised he hasn't called me yet. (But I'd be as happy as a *** with two *****, as my father would have said!)

Additional question from ArcAngel

7. How does it feel to be a part of the Wikipedia 100 club?

A: ArcAngel, it ain't over til it's over.

C:Well, pass or fail, you're still part of the club.  :)

Additional question from Doh5678

8. Would you consider nominating another user for adminship at this time? If so, who?

A: There are lots of excellent editors here, and many of them have a good temperament for such a job. Some of them were promoted fairly recently, which is good. But right now I can't really give names since it would be in an offhand manner, and those things require some preparation. So if you don't mind, and since you're not really pressing the point yet, I won't give any names at this moment, except for one: User:Kelapstick, with whom I've worked pleasantly for a long time, who is friendly to new editors, has the right temperament (he's drama-free, for instance), knows the ins and outs of the place, and just scored another big fattie at DYK. Please don't go messing with him right away--he's got a job to do first.

Additional questions from Σ

9. What do you think of my !oppose?

A:

10. Could you think of a better reason for opposing yourself?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• [If this is not the right place to bring this up, someone please move it to the right spot--thanks.] WSC and WFC brought something up, below, about CSD tagging, and I was reminded rightly that one shouldn't jump the gun on A1 and A3. Undoubtedly I have done so a few times, and I hope someone caught me. Now, besides the fact that since then I have gotten sooooo much older and wiser (though I don't know when I placed those tags), there's another kind of safeguard: I have no intention of shooting from the hip (deleting something if it hasn't been nominated for speedy deletion already), unless in blatant cases of abuse (esp. attack pages etc.). Drmies (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support as nominator. LadyofShalott 04:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Support absolutely. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Support – willing and capable. Airplaneman ✈ 04:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Support! - great editor with the personality to be a good admin. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Support. Hard-working, long-term contributor with an impressive portfolio of article creations and plenty of clue. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Support Generally clueful, no reason to expect abuse, and decent level of participation/agreement at AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Support - Absurdly over-qualified from a content perspective. Never blocked, either. I thank you for your outstanding service and wish you the best in this Rfa, and afterwards. Jusdafax 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Support great editor with a patient and helpful attitude toward newbies--Sodabottle (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Support I can't see any bad recent CSD nominations, which is great in my book. Clean block log, great content contributions. You'll do fine in this RfA :) Good luck! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Support - Fully qualified. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Hell yes. StrPby (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Support. Excellent candidate. High quality contributor. Good experience, all round. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Support. Great content creator, fair when offering opinions, very collegial. Keeps things in perspective. ^Bongo_matic 05:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    Psst, Cirt, Bongo--no one has said anything yet about bacon. You think we can keep this under wraps for a while? And then take over? And speedily delete Template:Ham, as an abomination of pork? Drmies (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

14. Support. In accordance with prophecy: When the link turns blue / I voice support for you. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Support. My interactions with this user have been positive and straightforward; no reason to think they would misuse a mop. VQuakr (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Support – Yes indeed. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Strong support Drmies does it all. He's a prolific contributor of high quality content who's very comfortable working collaboratively with others, an active vandalism fighter, a referencer of unreferenced BLPs, and a thoughtful participant in various areas such as AfD. He's firm with vandals and POV-pushers where called for, but very supportive of constructive editors, and nurturing to newbies who might benefit from his assistance and encouragement. He's very helpful to others, and, conversely, when unsure of something himself, he's not afraid to admit it, and ask for help. I find him to be one of the nicest people I've encountered. He inspired me to write my first DYK as well as several other articles, so, in addition to writing over 390 articles, he's also indirectly responsible for even more. Presenting an exemplary image of a Wikipedian, he's an incredible asset and will be even more so as an admin. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Longterm contributor with a clean blocklog and shedloads of experience. I noticed one overhasty A1 and I'd remind you that one should not be hasty with A1s and A3s - some unpromising first sentences have grown into useful articles if you wait for the second sentence to be added. But I saw more than enough good tagging and other work for me to support. ϢereSpielChequers 06:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    Agree. This one, for instance. —WFC— 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    Hi WSC and WFC (you make a nice couple!)--I can't see the incorrect tag, "The Red Flower" is now a redirect, obviously something different from what I tagged. In the footy glossary, I don't see myself--but it is possible, I imagine, that I tagged it incorrectly and it got deleted incorrectly, before The Rambling Man took it up again. Anyway, there are tags that I'd like to take back, yes, and sometimes I get there on time; I guess in these two cases I didn't, and I apologize for that. But let me address the point a bit more generally, above. Thanks for your comments. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    Apologies for not being clear. You didn't tag the footy glossary. My point was simply to illustrate the value in waiting. The diff that I posted could quite possibly have qualified as an A3. But 48 hours later, it has developed into a good-quality collabourative project, 80kb long, with 70 references and counting. Good luck with world domination the mop, I'm sure you'll be an excellent admin. —WFC— 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

    A late response: thanks for clarifying. Strictly speaking, it could have been tagged for no content, I guess. Usually, though, I find it more interesting to see if there's anything to it and start contributing. Personally, I try to take WP:BEFORE to heart (esp. since Unthanksgiving Day, referenced above), and a gloss of soccer terms has merit to it even if it is initially empty. I wouldn't tag something like that, no, and if I have in the past, I hope someone set me straight--I have come to realize more and more the value of cooperation, of others watching our edits as we watch theirs. Which reminds me: in many cases (that hopefully we can't see anymore since the articles were deleted) I type out a brief reason on the talk page, "CSD rationale," in which I briefly state what I think the issue is--no credible claim to notability, no relevant hits, or an explanation of why I think something might be a hoax or an attack.

19. Support. Strong track record. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
20. Support. I have been collaborating with the good doctor for a little over two years, and am glad it has finally come to this. Drmies is one of the best editors that we have around here, which will only improve after he is able to abuse his admin privileges to my benefit is given more tools to further help the encyclopedia. I am happy to support in this long overdue RfA. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
21. Ucucha 06:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Long overdue.
22. Clueful and constructive. —WFC— 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
23. Support - No concerns. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
24. Support Why not? --N KOzi^Talk 07:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
25. From my observations he's good at what he does. -- Mentifisto 07:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
26. Support – Seems to be an excellent candidate. --Leyo 08:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
27. Intends to delete main page and block Jimbo. Good man. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
28. Per Fastily. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
29. Bloodyminded support. I'm skeptical that GAs &c are necessarily what makes a good admin, so I'm not swayed much by the content arguments above. However, I am confident that Drmies has the policy knowledge and the temperament for adminship and that they'd be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
30. For the sake of what adminship used to be about - helping good editors contribute. - filelakeshoe 09:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. Very easy decision - this one is long overdue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Exactly the sort of admin we need. Concur with Boing! said Zebedee... (good taste in music too) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Literally thought already was. Hobit (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
34. Support – Sensible and communicative. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
35. Support More than the nominator. Is going to do good work as sysop. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
36. Support, excellent work in the trenches as well as in content creation. Kuru (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
37. Enthusiastic, tolerant, and has an excellent sense of humor. Wait, sorry, this is adminship you're applying for... Juliancolton (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
38. Support With half of the supporters being admins (so far), how is this a losing proposition?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
39. Yup, totally. I agree with Werespeilchequers just to take a breath before CSD. GedUK  12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
40. Support per WSC and Fastily :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:43pm • 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
41. Support As someone said above, should have been an admin long ago. Wide editing experience. (Probably there in bits I haven't even found yet ...) Sensible and calm, good educator and explainer. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
42. Support - terrific work, great sense of humor, lots of clue. Why not? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
43. Strong support One of the best candidates for the job. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
44. Support About time. Do try to resist the urge to block lazing admins though. I can hear the bells toll! --rgpk (comment) 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
45. Support Excellent editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
46. Support More than enough gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - Ubiquitous presence, very knowledgeable without coming across as a know-it-all, and a great sense of humor. A definite positive asset. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
48. Support Intelligent, helpful, well-meaning, pleasant demeanor. No reservations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
49. Support - Seems like an excellent candidate. Rlendog (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
50. Support – My interactions with Drmies has been excellent. Drmies can be trusted with the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
51. Strong Support An excellent candidate, he does a great job around here. No doubt that he'll put the tools to good use. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
52. Support I feel that this is an editor who will think things through before acting and I agree that this is long overdo. MarnetteD | Talk 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
53. Wheeeeeee. Please don't stop writing articles even after you become an admin. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
54. Support A good, solid editor. I don't recall any negativity or drama from this editor. Cullen328 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
55. Support A fully qualified editor, whom my own interactions with for the Ambassador program have been generally positive. Shows signs of being a mindful Wikipedian, Sadads (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
56. Support Said he would have asked for my child, If he was not carrying Moonriddengirl's child already :-) I love administrators with the sence of humor. Sadly there are so very few of them around here.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
57. Support --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
58. Support —DoRD (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
59. Support Excellent admin material. Somehow he has managed to maintain his sense of humor in this place, but I trust that this as well as his habit of writing contents will disappear once he gets the mop. Learning from the recent Lars von Trier debacle, I better emphasize that I am being ironic. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
60. Support Honestly, what the people above have said mirrors my sentiments. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
61. Support - clueful, helpful, knowledgeable about policies, very valued contributor, virtually always maintains his composure, stops to assist new (and old) editors and admits if he makes a mistake (ummm, Dmries, not that you make any... )ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
62. Support based largely on previous experiences seeing this editor's work, as well as a brief review of contributions. --joe decker^{talk to me} 16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
63. Support Yes, please. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
64. Strong support Well-thought-out answers to the questions, solid credentials — in fact, close to an "ideal" candidate.--Hokeman (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
65. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
66. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 17:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
67. Support. Should have been an admin years ago, but better late than never! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
68. Support a great candidate with solid contributions and experience. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
69. Support - AfD record is pretty good, no nutball observations/votes that I can find. Since Freakshownerd turned out to be a CoM sock, I don't begrudge anyone who tussled with him, so that angle's fine. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
70. Support - This is one of those cases where I feel I know the candidate well enough from interactions and discussions I've participated in, and feel totally confident in them. Objectively speaking, content contribution is fantastic and I've seen many cases where Drmies shows plenty of clue. -- Atama頭 18:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
71. Support - Finally! Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
72. Support - Good answer to question and no reason to oppose. I definitely support this request. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
73. Support I'm going to be very excited by the outcome of this nomination, because I originally wanted to nominate him for adminship back in September. (and there was a lot of excitement back over there too! [1]) He is in my opinion the best contributor in Wikipedia who plans to become an admin. Minima© (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    You got a new sig--nice! Drmies (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks! I knew that somebody would spot the difference in my new sig. Minima© (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

74. Support - I've frequently come across Drmies' edits, and am always impressed with his communication skills and commitment to the project --CutOffTies (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
75. Support - Happy to see this editor nominated for tools. A trusted user who cares about content. BusterD (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
76. Support. This person is clearly over-qualified. Definitely someone I've seen around numerous times, and not only are there no red flags, but there is no question in my mind that the candidate is an outstanding member of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
77. Support I thought you already were an admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
78. Delighted to add my name to the list. Per nomination and above. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
79. Support - Per Pedro My76Strat ^talk 21:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
80. Support – I thought you already were an admin! You will handle the mop and bucket well. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
81. Support - Absolutely - good luck...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
82. Snow closure please! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

    WP:RIGHTNOW! —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

83. Positive experiences that leave little doubt that this candidate couldn't be trusted. Tommy! 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
84. Support – Add my name to the list of people who thought you already had the mop. Obvious support. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
85. Support - surprised you weren't one already. Mature, common-sense editor whose adminship would be a benefit to the project. --NellieBly (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
86. Courcelles 23:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
87. Absolutely. ceranthor 23:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
88. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
89. Support- As cliched as it sounds, I assumed you already were one. Reyk _YO! 01:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
90. Support He'll be a good administrator. WayneSlam 02:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
91. Support A strong candidate who knows lots. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
92. M'hm. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
93. This editor has style. And policy knowledge as far as I have seen. The Interior (Talk) 04:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
94. Support. Highly qualified candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
95. Support, I've seen this editor around alot, always doing great work with excellent attitude and knowledge. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 05:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
96. Support - Will be a good admin, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
97. Support. Seen the name around so often, you get the obligatory 'thought he already was one' vote from me. -- œ^™ 11:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
98. Strong support Drmies strengthens Wikipedia with every edit.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
99. Support Positive impression of this user strengthened by so-far unanimous support from broad section of community leads me to first RfA vote in a long time. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
100. Support' No concerns. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
101. Support, most certainly. Great editor, I have seen doing some good work. No problems here, they will do a good job.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
102. Support - experienced quality contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
103. Support - The Helpful One 16:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
104. Support I was honestly surprised Drmies wasn't an admin already; a review of our interactions over the years makes me glad we're correcting this oversight. Even when we disagreed, he was always reasonable and civil. Ray^Talk 17:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
105. Support. Being nominated by an atheist is good, although being nominated by an antitheist would be even better, and if we have to have administrators then we might as well have administrators who understand how to build decent content. Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
106. Adding another hate-group vote: support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ}
107. Support Are we sure he isn't an admin already? Oh well as a wise HJ Mitchell once said, "better late than never!" I don't see any problem with him being an admin he has done good work so I say we let him do more,  Adwiii  Talk  19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
108. Support. I can't find anything to oppose him with :-) Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

     "If at first you don't succeed..." My life partner would like to have a word with you, Crazymonkey, to tell you that you're insane. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

     (this isn't a vote on your libido :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

109. Support. A good editor, and such are what become good admins. Deor (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
110. Support. For reasons already stated above by other users. /Julle (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
111. Support I thought you were an admin already.--Chaser2 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
112. Support. A level-headed editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
113. Absolutely Calmer Waters 00:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
114. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
115. Drmies is a joy to work with, especially if you're a newbie. He'd be an asset to the admin community. --DracoEssentialis (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
116. Support. Friendly, great sense of humor, hard working, doesn't seem to get stressed at all. Will be an asset to the admin corps, though honestly I thought he (?) was already an admin! TK (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
117. Support. This is one like Boing Said Zebedee's RfA where one asks them self, "You mean he isn't already an admin?". Well...he should be. Full support.
     ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
118. Support. Naturally! I'd have thought he already was an admin.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
119. support It is about time. JoshuaZ (talk)
120. Support with the highest of regard for this editor and his tireless dedication to improving the project! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
121. Support Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
122. Support - stunning editor! Good sense of humour... always fantastic! Orphan Wiki 09:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
123. Support I have noticed many positive contributions from this user. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
124. Running up the score Support Good content contributor, no black marks, will be a credit to Wiki.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
125. Support against my tendency to not comment on process that has a clear outcome already. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
126. Strong Support - Better late than never! Dr. M. is a great contributor and will make a superb admin. Doc Tropics 13:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
127. Support--Jcaraballo enwiki 13:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
128. Support - should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
129. Support - This RfA should quiet the bellies of the content beasts. Damn good work, as per Fetchcomms, write with one hand while wielding the mop in the other. Mlpearc powwow 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
130. Seems like a great candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
131. Support TBloemink (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
132. Support. Great editor. I'm offended I didn't know about this RFA sooner. Drmies rewrote the article about me fantastically, among other things. tedder (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

     Your invitation may have gotten lost in the mail, Tedder. That article was so much fun, a real learning experience, and I appreciate the help you gave me then and afterwards. At the time, User:decltype challenged me to turn "their" article into a DYK, and it is one of my regrets that I wasn't able to do so (frankly, I don't even understand the first sentence of that article)--but I see that they brought it up to GA (which I find truly amazing). Please give my regards to Mrs. Tedder. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

133. Support I know I've seen them around, and while I can't recall the circumstances exactly, something rings a bell in a good way for me. However, in looking at the contribs and all, it appears they are quite qualified to click on a few extra buttons here and there. — Ched :  ?  19:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
134. (edit conflict)Support - No reason not to. mauchoeagle _(c) 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
135. Support - all around excellent Wikipedian, no problem at all trusting him with the tools. Seaphoto^Talk 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It's not a real RfA without one. --Σ _☭^★ 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   Seriously? Is that actually necessary? LadyofShalott 18:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   I simultaneously topped Keepscases !neutral. --Σ _☭^★ 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   Naw, that one was too simple. Shoulda gone for "Oppose: overqualified". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   If this is meant to be humorous, it should be indented. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   Sure it is. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose. Keepscases (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

   Extended discussion of this !vote moved to the talk page. Swarm ^X 19:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral The candidate states the value of edit summaries in Q4 but only uses them for 52% of their minor edits (although 99% of major edits). If you really believe that they are important for communication (as they are), then you should use them all the time. Especially with minor edits it's useful to know what you did since the definition of "minor" varies from editor to editor. As such, I'm unable to support this request although since you use them for major edits almost all the time, I will not oppose. Regards SoWhy 14:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

   Even more childish than Keepscases' "neutral" vote, but to each his own I guess. :/ Tarc (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

   I see this !vote as very valid and not childish. It won't move me to not support Drmies, but it does seem somewhat hypocritical if he believes in edit summaries but doesn't use them himself for almost half of his minor edits. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   Inconsistent perhaps, but not hypocritical. Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   Good distinction there. LadyofShalott 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

   Well, SoWhy comments also on the difficulty of determining what makes an edit a minor edit. I can try to count, and maybe argue that a lot of them are "ce" for copy edit (and that a lot of them are probably in articles I started, where I was in the initial stages), but that's kind of lame. I can go up and insert some phrase about "minor edits" in my answer above (which is probably what I should have said in the first place), but that would really be lame--or I can take SoWhy's comment to heart. I think I know what I'll do. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)