Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abecedare 2

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

Final (119/0/0); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 19:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 19:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare (talk · contribs) – I have the honor of presenting Abecedare for consideration as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. “Superbly articulate, level-headed, and fair-minded”[1] was how one editor described Abecedare and that is a description that most anyone who has come in contact with him will recognize and agree with. Working mostly on our India pages (though he finds time to opine on other esoteric topics like Fast Fourier[2] - no, that’s not a horse at Belmont!), Abecedare is that respected editor who can cut through the partisan discourse and provide a reasoned policy based response that everybody usually recognizes as the encyclopedic solution (cf., this discussion where everyone ends up happy or this one where an irritated new editor is gently steered in the right direction). This ability to rise above partisan discussions and a strong knowledge of policy (example: copyrights) make Abecedare a model Wikipedian and an ideal admin.

But, Abecedare has been an admin before. Appointed unanimously by the community in his 2009 RfA, he was an active admin for a year (blocks, protects, deletions) before real life took him away for a long enough stretch that his adminship timed out (by 10 days!)[3]. Much like his content work, his adminship is best characterized as polite but firm (cf. [4], [5]). Fortunately for us, Abecedare returned to Wikipedia a couple of years ago, has been working away on content, and is now willing to reapply for the admin tools. With his calm ‘willing to listen’ manner, experience as an admin, and his knowledge of the long term sock farms on India related pages, re-equipping him with the admin tools will be of great benefit to the project. regentspark (comment) 15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Regentspark I have been impressed by the good work and even-keeled temper of Abecedare. I had completely failed to notice that they weren't an administrator anymore, until a couple of weeks ago when something brought me to their user page and I scratched my head for a little while. Abecedare is, as far as I'm concerned, among the best of admins even when they aren't an admin, and their expertise in a sometimes particularly difficult area is noted already by Regentspark. I have no qualms about co-nominating and can't wait until they're back among the admin corps. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, with thanks to User:RegentsPark and User:Drmies. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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: Essentially along two-tracks:

• Help editors working on India and Hinduism related articles with tasks that need the admin toolset. Wikipedia has roughly 150,000 articles on these subjects, and quite a few editors, but just a handful of currently active admins working in this area. As attested by Arbcom's Discretionary Sanction regime covering all India-Pakistan-Afghanistan related articles, this is an area beset with issues of POV-pushing, soapboxing, edit-warring, socking, plagiarism and copyvios, and promotional and paid editing. It also attracts a large number of new and inexperienced editors. Language and subject-area knowledge can help understand the issues and conflicts, and especially help separate good faith but misguided editors (who we should work hard to retain) from dyed in the wool ethnic/linguistic/nationalistic/political/commercial POV pushers (who need to be shown the door, to preserve both encyclopedic content, and the time and sanity of good-faith editors). And it is not just about being a beat cop: talk-pages and the project noticeboard present a less intimidating setting for editors, especially new ones, to ask for help and admin tools are sometimes needed to address their concerns. And to preempt the obvious question: yes, I am cognizant of WP:INVOLVED but even with my ~9 years here I have touched only a small fraction of the articles even in this one corner of wikipedia (the size of the project truly defies our intuition!) and plan to, as previously, use the tools conservatively staying away from any borderline cases.
• Other than that, as in my previous stint as an admin, I will try to lend a hand at WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:CSD (except for A7 and A9 deletions, which I am very inefficient at because I am always tempted to spend undue time searching for sources), WP:RM, WP:AIV etc. I am easily bored, so I am unlikely to become a regular at any one of these, but will rather try to work on the ones facing backlogs (as I often see posted at WP:AN).

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

A: I occasionally create articles from scratch (Rani Sati, Pashupati seal, Alice Stewart Trillin, Maryam Jameelah, Pratapaditya Pal etc) and am especially chuffed when some mere stub I create is picked up by other wikipedia editors for further development (eg W. Norman Brown). I have also contributed content, and helped maintain, two FAs Ganesha and India (both of which are hugely collaborative efforts) and have reviewed plenty more. But my primary interest is searching for and reading sources since I enjoy that process of sleuthing, discovery and learning. And so most of my content contributions involve improving content and sourcing of articles on a more piecemeal basis, say, a few sentences, paragraphs, or a section at a time. And some of these improvements can involve a lot of talk-page discussion, eg check out the lengthy discussion behind the four-sentence Early life of Hemu section. And inevitably, some of the research work goes nowhere on wikipedia, although I still end up learning about the subject.

In keeping with my interests, I also often weigh in at AFDs, the contribute to the RS noticeboard and at the ref desks.

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: I can't do better than essentially copy the answer from my previous RFA:

Having been active in areas related to history, religion, nationality and (sometimes) caste, politics, fringe science and current events, I have regularly come across both content and conduct issues including incivility, POV pushing, poor sourcing, tendentious editing, spamming, sock-puppetry, copyvios, misrepresentation of sources, and many edit-wars. I have also participated and/or opined in numerous content debates, many of which were passionate, on subjects related to concerns about NPOV and due weight, article name, image use, BLP etc. Lastly, I have seen many good editors become disillusioned with wikipedia and retire, while others (including me, for a period) have been pulled away by real life. While all these events and occurrences have shaped my view of wikipedia's editing environment, I can honestly say that, they haven't caused me any real-life or on-wiki stress, perhaps because this is a hobby for me, and because I don't edit articles I have a strong personal stake in and hence content disputes are not personal for me.

The only other bit I'll add is that while I've never been stressed about any on-wiki issue, editing here does come with an opportunity cost in that it prevents one from indulging in other hobbies. But then again, I wouldn't be here if I didn't find that to be an acceptable trade-off.

Additional question from 78.26

4. Why have you chosen to utilize the RfA process, rather than requesting reinstatement?

A: Because I was inactive from Aug 21, 2010 to Aug 31, 2013 (ie 10 days over three years), I was not eligible for an automatic re-sysop. And because my main editing interests don't require admin tools I have been in no hurry to regain them. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Northamerica1000

5. What are your views regarding the content at WP:INDAFD in relation to AfD discussions?

A: Quick thoughts:

• The Main points are very good, and a useful supplement to WP:BEFORE.
• I am less in agreement with the Known issues section. For my thoughts on (blindly) applying WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to Indian secondary schools see my recent post at AN. Also "no one writes/discusses on Indian books" is an exaggeration, although I can empathize with the frustration of the essayist, User:Titodutta, who I know well and who obviously didn't mean it literally.
• If I were to write an essay on the topic, I would also add tips about being beware of: circular sources such as books published by Gyan and ISHA (discussed numerous times at RSN); local/metro supplements of mainline Indian newspapers; colonial-era writings and census on the caste system (see this essay) etc. And that, while easy accessibility is certainly an issue, there is a surprising amount of information available on even seemingly obscure Indic topics if one has access to, and is ready to spend time at, a physical library or consult academic databases (some of which WP:WIKILIB can help with), eg see Rani Sati and compare it with how it would perhaps look if one relied only on generic websites (ignore the grammar issues that are easily fixed, and focus on the difference in content).

Did you have any particular point of WP:INDAFD in mind? Abecedare (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than enough, and thanks for your comprehensive answer to my intentionally open-ended question. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from CookieMonster755

6. As a member, do you think theArticles for Creation process is an important part of English Wikipedia?

A: I am not a member of the project and am not really familiar with how the sausage is made. But focusing on the concept: I think it is very important for wikipedia to have a process to review articles created by unregistered/new/inexperienced users before they are moved to main-space because it prevents (or at least discourages) hoaxes, BLP vios, tall-claims and general puffery that is often found in such articles. And it allows the article creator to get some feedback, which they can use to improve the article, rather than see the article speedied or immediately taken to AFD, which can be discouraging and drive off potentially good editors.

My main interaction with the process has been through notices posted at WT:INB by some AFC-regulars (esp. User:Anne Delong) asking for help with India related submissions, and I must say that I have been impressed by their diligence. Abecedare (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

• Edit stats posted on talk page. Epic Genius (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting that a notice was not posted for an oppose vote whom user:Ret Prof had indented to the talk page. Please remember to respect and not to frighten away new editors and to AGF. Regards. Vendetta Mack (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I blocked that guy, who appears to have created anaccount for the sole purpose of yelling at people about the oppose vote incident, and that the supposedly new editor he was defending here actually started editing four years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - No brainer. - NQ (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Former admin who wants the tools back. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Another admin with Abecedare's expertise and insight on India related topics will be a great help to the Encyclopedia.  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - A calm, sensible and helpful editor. Amitrochates (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Looked through candidates contributions - Great expertise at AfD discussions, with 20,000 tasty edits to Wikipedia. This user has demonstrated that they are ready for adminship. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hey, hey, me first! Drmies (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is why I believe the administrator inactivity policy is a pointless exercise in bureaucracy that solved a non-existent problem. By the way, welcome back. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Glrx (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - per answers, editing and admin history, noms, answer to question 5 in previous RfA, yeah... all that. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support precious user with a sense of humour, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - no issues at all. GiantSnowman 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Looks fine to me. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support absolutely. --Stfg (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support easy support Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support As others have said, easy support. Mkdw^talk 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Of course. Malinaccier (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Known quantity, no reason to oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Quality contributor who goes out of their way to present their (typically on-point) policy positions in detailed and explicit terms. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Of course, and there's already a well-worn mop with their name on it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support I support the administrator inactivity policy - and re-sysopping old admins. Content creators need the tools. Have your mop back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, obviously. I guess it's returning admin month. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, per (almost) all the above. (I support the desysop for inactivity policy.) BMK (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Trustworthy former admin. I really wonder why he didn't just go to BN in September 2013, because there would be no objections anyway, but if this is a reconfirmation request, I still would support. Epic Genius (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Widr (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Good candidate, a former admin desysopped for inactivity and willing to work in one of the areas where we need help. Miniapolis 22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support I edit indic articles fairly frequently, and so I've come across Abecedare before. I have absolutely no issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Of course. Is there any precedent for a SNOW result of successful? DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More like a speedy keep I guess :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29. Support why not? Jianhui67 ^T★C 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30. Stephen 23:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support: excellent former admin. Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support as nom. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, looks good to me. No major issues since returning to editing. Nakon 01:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - no doubt this will be a good admin. --TL22 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Definitely. Well-proven good former administrator. I think that administrators who can reliably review content and issues relating to Indian articles are especially needed. Donner60 (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support, obviously. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support --I am One of Many (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, obvious. Graham87 05:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - this user seems more than qualified to regain the mop. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support When a productive administrator loses the toolkit only because of a long Wikibreak, and then recommits to the encyclopedia, they should get the tools back, with acclamations from all. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Glad to have you back in the mop squad. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - A great former admin and level-headed content editor with proper understanding of the policies who works in areas that need a lot of attention. So, why not?! — Yash! ^(Y) 07:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
45. I supported him the first time around and see no reason not to do so again. Great editor. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Trusted admin with a good track record coming back. 91% success rate at AfD. No brainer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support- this really is just a formality. Enjoy the tools back. Reyk _YO! 08:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - A no-brainer. --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support trustworthy candidate. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Past record and quality of supporting editors. Easy choice, . Buster Seven Talk 13:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support: Committed to Wikipedia values and unafraid to wade into difficult territory. That plus having already been an administrator without significant problems makes it an easy decision.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support:I really like quality contributors who go out of their way to present their (typically on-point) policy positions in detailed and explicit terms. A great editor! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. No concerns. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 15:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support No issues that I can see. Glad to have this admin back holding the mop. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Shows an in-depth understanding of policy, and a level-headed editing style. I am confident that this user will make a positive contribution as an admin. Mamyles (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck although of course you won't really need it as you'll sail through this :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Give back his mop asap - we need experienced mop handlers particularly in the South Asia aisles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - If Drmies thinks him worthy of a co-nomination, then Abecedare definitely has my full support. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - I mean, it's kind of obvious. Rswallis10 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - As an admin who took some time off and has returned to be highly active (and made a few intermediate admin actions to prevent this from happening) , it is unfortunate that the tools got taken away. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong support Outstanding track record. I think this Admin will return to his duties with a bang, and will have a profound impact on the Wiki. Thank you Trout 71 20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - No issues, and the user has shown he's trustworthy. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support — No concerns and has the Drmies Seal of Approval.™ Carrite (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Good former admin, nice track record. I haven't ever seen an RfA with no opposes or neutrals before, but good luck! :) BenLinus1214^talk 00:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - I was the second supporter back in 2009, and I see no reason not to support now. Delighted you have returned. Best wishes always. Jusdafax 05:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support It seems to me rather important that Abecedare should be an administrator again. Thincat (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Seems like an all round decent person. Bosstopher (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support someone who has shown and will show exceptional quality as an admin: Noyster (talk), 12:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. Special:Contributions/Abecedare = yes. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - No need to expound rationale; Abcedare is just what we need. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support, procedurally for a user with a demonstrated good history of admin actions. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. But in my book, this counts as not losing an admin, not gaining an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support with bells on. We know he can do the job, and do it well; just dust off the mop and hand it back already. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
77. Safe for me to support now without the risk of jinxing this thing. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support This one is easy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support, an easy choice. Was already a good admin once, and didn't lose the tools for anything controversial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Not insane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. AfD contributions are somewhat sporadic, but otherwise, Abecedare has a good track record of editing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Good then and good now. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Yes please.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
85. Editing history looks superb, as does administrative experience and talk page participation. Having a look through Abecedare's talk page archives, this editor seems ready and ever-willing to engage other editors in discussion and explain his reasoning and policy-based rationale behind the actions he takes. On top of this, he comes across as rational and well-spoken. Distribution of edits shows high volume of activity in the project and talk namespaces, and some solid article work to boot. Well-balanced experience. I'm glad to offer my support. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support An easy one. Well-respected former admin. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
87. Any concerns about future inactivity are remedied because they have been active for the last 2 years. --Rschen7754 00:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support With pleasure. Glad to see another excellent editor and former admin regain the mop. My only beef is that I don't get to be #100 but I didn't want to wait either. First world problems ahoy! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Here's your mop! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support, and thanks again for your comprehensive answer to my question #5. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support, well-earned. -- Scray (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - A an excellent editor and former admin who wants the tools back. The Snowager-is awake 19:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - Yessir. Rahul^{Text me} 22:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - Obvious. 02:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einpedia (talk • contribs)
95. Support as there is no evidence they will misuse the tools or position.--MONGO 03:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
96. Strong Support I think he is suitable for the mop. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
97. Seems like a net positive to me. ceranthor 14:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
98. Pile on support Answers are great and sounds like we know what we are getting here. That a former admin has 100% support is more than a bit impressive. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
99. Glad to add my support as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support - Welcome back. Mifter (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - I'm not a very active editor here, but I figured that I would stop by here and see if anyone was a good candidate. Glad I did. -Zman9600 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support - Trusted candidate. Welcome back! :) DivineAlpha 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
103. I am very busy in real life, and I came here just to support this RFA. Abecedare is a very nice user, I would always thank him that he helped me with so many histories and prehistories. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
104. Per Regentspark's and Drmies' noms. One solid rock against an outgoing tide of admins. Glad to have you back. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support - Didn't know Ab had been an admin before. It will be a welcome influence to have him be one again. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support Drmie's nomination is more than enough for a support in my book. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support --j⚛e decker^talk 13:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Even though it's six years after his first nomination, it proves that he's one of the natural net positives. Minima© (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - looks good. Rlendog (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support I was a co-nom at Abecedare's previous nomination and I don't think there's anything to be said differently other than the fact that he has more experience and has also wielded the mop perfectly. —SpacemanSpiff 14:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support; certainly well deserved. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support Quality contributor and found very decent & civilised in discussions. - Ninney (talk)
113. Support - should have just IAR'ed and automatically reinstated. -Zanhe (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support per Drmies and regentpark Good user and the project will gain the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
115. No 20 questions or nitpicking of that one AfD that one time? You've got some sort of power. Support. Wizardman 00:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Psst, Wizardman, I got someone to suppress that one AfD. Hush hush. Drmies (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

116. Support. Straightforward procedural re-sysoping by the community of an excellent former admin with not a cloud in sight.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support Whew, almost missed the deadline. I'm really, really pleased that Ab has reappplied. We definitely need him. And in a way I'm glad that he wasn't automatically reinstated, it's nice to be able to give a good editor a vote of confidence such as this one. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
118. Last minute Support. No evidence user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
119. Support I look forward to this user helping out. Chillum 15:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.