Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fabiform

User:Fabiform
'''Would someone make this person an admin already?! :) jengod'''

Fabiform is one of those folks who gladly takes on Wikipedia housekeeping work, formatting, and other tedious tasks. That and he's meticuluous about including meaingful edit summaries -- a true sign of a responsible Wikipedian! Also an active participant on the #wikipedia IRC channel, as well as talk and meta pages, where he's been friendly, reasonable, and inquisitive. Oh yeah... and fabi sent the 500k press release out to *dozens* of UK media outlets. Thoroughly and consistently impressive work, deserving of both recognition and trust. Over 3800 edits since 10 January 2004. -- Seth Ilys 19:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :)  I was surprised to be nominated after only 2 months here, but flattered at the response.  I've thought about it and I would like to accept.  I'm not very bold, so I think you can trust me not to do anything wild, at least until I've had the powers for a while.  ;)  If you delve into my contributions and look at my first logged in edit, you'll see that I added  to an article... it's a good insight into my personality – I spent ages reading the help pages before I dared to do anything, and learnt a lot about how to go on before I ever clicked "edit this page".  fabiform | talk 17:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Seth Ilys 19:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely support.  A true pleasure to work with. Meelar 19:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. We need more bean-shaped editors! Maximus Rex, 19:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. 4 supporting votes within 10 minutes - this is looking positive! Ludraman 19:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Above reasons. Richard cocks
 * 6) Support.  Very active contributor and editor.  RadicalBender 20:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I thought he was sysop already. He also understands the use of the summary field. :-) &mdash; Sverdrup 20:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Absolutely -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;  22:15, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. theresa knott 22:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support... you beat me to it. ugen64 22:29, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) support. whats he gonna do wrong (if hes been here 3 months) that he wouldn't have already done?  Nothing. Perl 22:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, mostly b/c yay fabi, and in part because I'm against having vaguely defined time requirements. There either needs to be a "law" regarding required tenure, or people's qualification for admin should be based on overall performance. jengod 22:58, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Support wholeheartedly Stewart Adcock 23:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Hephaestos|&#167; 23:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Merovingian - Support, the edits speak for themselves. --Monsieur Mero 02:41, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) This is very difficult for me, as I agree with Angela and Dori that I would have much preferred to wait a month. However, I asked myself what the standards are for--they are to ensure that we promote admins who are truly devoted to how we do things here and not about to cause trouble.  Fabiform has done a tremendous job of gaining my trust here, and I have no doubts about integrity or dedication.  Therefore, I (carefully and in considered fashion) set aside my general guideline for an exceptional case. Jwrosenzweig 02:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. A very friendly and dedicated contributor. Isomorphic 04:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Good people are good people. The time limit is only a guideline, not an iron-clad rule to chain us. Tannin
 * 19) Support - Danny 12:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) No question - I'd put forward a small idea on W:FPC and Fabi jumps in and does the hard yakka coding it - Thanks mate - Gaz 13:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Users like Fabiform are a perfect example of why I dislike fixed time/edit requirements for admins. Michael Snow 17:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) I've changed my vote from neutral to support. Never mind about silly rules like 3 months. Fabiform will be a good admin whether made one now or next month. Angela. 01:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Adam Bishop 19:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Davodd 00:33, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Has definitely given me a good impression. Elf | Talk 00:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Absolutely support. Kosebamse 19:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. - MykReeve 22:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Ruhrjung 02:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Support- dedicated contributor (as a newbie, completed the whole list of authors abandoned by me:-) KRS 03:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * (actually, I abandoned that after a while too ;) fabiform | talk
 * 1) Support- Decumanus 00:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Fabiform is a great, dedicated editor. - Mark 01:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Warofdreams 16:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Elf-friend 18:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Pro fabi support -- excluding unusual and nonrecurring actions. +sj+ 12:05, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) Fabiform is embarassed that she has unanimous support, and she requested that I oppose him to balance things a bit. Perl 00:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :D  fabiform | talk 00:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose.  Power corrupts, and administrator power corrupts stratospherically.  I like fabi and her non-spherical shape just the way they are.  Say NO to corruption -- vote for the status quo!  +sj+ 06:11, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)  oops... left myself logged in while the spirit was upon me.  I am by definition against status quo adulation; support, of course. +sj+
 * 2) I believe that fabiform would not be a good candidate for admin. However, let me begin my essay by first noting that I am a bureaucrat and a sysop. There. Now, I shall begin. Firstly, I must adjust my tie. Ok, there we go. Firstly, fabiform is bean-shaped. I do not like people who are bean-shaped; rather, I generally eat them. Unless they are beans, which cause a large amount of flatulence and are generally unhealthy. Bean products are okay, however, especially those containing peanut butter. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are good, but not those they serve at my school's cafeteria. However, I digress. Secondly, fabiform does not know how to speak Korean. I discriminate against those who cannot speak Korean. Third, he she has actually helped me, and I hate people who actually help me. Fourthly, he she spells his her name with a lowercase 'f', which is copying my signature. Fifthly... he she participates on the IRC channel. Sixthly, I am hypocritical; however, that does not mean that fabiform should be an administrator. Seventhly... I wholeheartedly, unanimously, Canadianly, oppose him her adminship as a fervent antidisestablishmentarianist. Eighthly, she's a girl :(. ugen64 03:02, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Who else is fed up of this ranting? :-) Ludraman | Talk 19:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Uh, Ludramen, I think Ugen was being facetious. At least, I hope so. &rarr;Raul654 19:21, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Me. But perhaps it's only a (bad) joke, given the general tone - and good humor usually helps everybody with a sense for it :O) - irismeister 19:23, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
 * Ludraman, don't panic, this was a joke. Ugen and I obviously share the same sense of humour (and you will see that ugen also listed himself under "support").  Sorry for the confusion.  :)  fabiform | talk 19:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - I wasn't taking it seriously! Ludraman | Talk 19:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Phew. You had me worried there for a second. &rarr;Raul654 19:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * At least I've added a smiley face now! Everyone loves smiley faces. Ludraman | Talk 19:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) I would support, except that the time here is a tad short (I am trying to stick to my vote of at least 3 months, and 1000 edits). He's done excellent work though. Dori | Talk 22:24, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly what I was going to say! Angela. 22:28, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC) (changed to support)
 * Info: ~2000 non minor edits in 1 month here on wikipedia. Managed to stay cool in iridology war (unlike me, and I am an admin). Yes the time is short, but a month is IMO long enough to tell what a person is like.Especially when that person is so active theresa knott 22:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That number of edits is for 2 months, please don't make my already high wikiaddiction look any worse. ;)  fabiform | talk 17:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought the standards were only for individuals who were applying themselves. Perl 03:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No, the guidelines are trying to define who can be trusted to be a sysop, or who's been here long enough that an assessment of their character is possible... so they apply equally to people who are nominated by others and to people who nominate themselves.  :) fabiform | talk 17:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * lol, simply the fact that people have stated neutral instead of oppose because of this shows that he is a well-trusted user. :-) ugen64 01:06, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Aaaah, Angela has abandoned me in my last stand. By I will not waver in my convictions (or stubborness). Whose idea was it to test me with Mark Ryan and Fabiform (the people who nominated them I guess)? Dori | Talk 03:37, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I would support because of so many contributions, but would also like a personal reminder about Neutrality - that dreaded saeva necessitas  :O) - bean shaped nose, of course :O) - irismeister 18:42, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)