Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/W.marsh 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

W.marsh[edit]

Final (111/0/0) Ended 17:36 26 September 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh (talk · contribs) – Well this is going to be a weird RfA, because I'm sure some people think I still am an admin. I was an admin from December 05 until about 2 1/2 weeks ago, when I asked to be de-sysopped, thinking I was finished editting Wikipedia. Of course that didn't turn out to be true. I've talked to Taxman and since I had been in a conflict before leaving, he wasn't comfortable re-promoting me without a RfA, and that's cool, so I'm back. You can read all the gory details of the conflict here and here. I'm not really proud of how I acted in that one conflict, but I am proud of my 8+ months as an admin, I had very few conflicts, and did a lot of decent work, and miss being able to help out with the various backlogs I worked on. I don't see the point in waiting longer to re-apply, I'd like to start helping out again ASAP, and I haven't heard a squeak from the conflict for the past 2 weeks, so it appears to be a closed case. Anyway, that's the long and the short of it. I know people at RfA have a hard time letting bygones be bygones sometimes, I can't say enough that I feel bad about how I reacted and that it won't happen again, so I'd appreciate if we can assume some good faith here. --W.marsh 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I did a lot of work at CAT:CSD and WP:AFD (closing discussions), and feel bad that I can't really help with the backlogs now (actually I add to them, listing afds and adding CSD tags regularly). I also worked with copyvios a good deal. So those would be the primary places I'd focus still. I was consistently in the "top X" listings people post for admin activity, so I clearly have a use for the tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, Shotgun house is a featured article that I took through FAC and wrote the most of the pre-main page text for (it actually got improved a lot while it was on the main page, which was a pleasent surprise). History of Louisville and Old Louisville are good articles that I've provided nearly all of the referencing and much of the current text for. I've also done a lot of work with Orphaned Articles, through User:MarshBot lately and think my work there will eventually be a boon to Wikipedia, so even our "worst 1%" of articles are not even all that bad.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well, before Labor Day 2006 I hadn't been in any conflicts that bear much mention - I really am not very confrontational, don't have a POV to push, and just make good faith edits... leads to very few conflicts. On Labor Day though, after 8+ months as an admin and 13+ months as a Wikipedian, I blocked this guy MassiveEgo, and for the first time I really had respected Wikipedians saying things to me that I found quite offensive. Admittedly it was my own fault, I hadn't been expecting anything like the reaction I got, and was emotionally upset and didn't know what to do, it was really just an unfortunate series of events.
Leaving turned out to be something I regretted, I came back rather quickly, and have not been in any conflicts at all since then... it was pretty much just a one time thing. I'd never met the people, I didn't know that people actually would act like that, now I do and I won't react like that again. Since coming back, I've been doing the same stuff I've always done, minus the admin work of course.
Again, no one involved in the conflict wanted me de-sysopped or blocked or anything (this was specifically said). I asked to be de-sysopped because at the time I did not think I'd be editting Wikipedia anymore. I went 8 months and had never had a block seriously disputed (and really only can recall blocking a total of 3 non-vandals, none of those blocks were controversial).
4. Knowing what you know now regarding the Massiveego situation, would you have handled it differently in retrospect or do you feel you learned something from the experience?
I definently would have handled the reaction on AN/I and my talk page differently, less hysterically to put it bluntly. As for the block, it's a hopelessly small sample size, I've only ever accused one person of trolling on WP, and only ever blocked one person for it... so I'd feel dishonest saying exactly what I'd do the next time I suspect a user is trolling and causing disruption, if I even ever feel that way again. I know I'll handle it a bit differently now, mostly as was suggested I should have in instance of my talk page above (warn them, then block for 24 hours if there's continued disruption). I still think that Wikipedia as a community should appreciate good editors and ignore trolls, that's a general principle I hold that is only incidently related to this case.
5. (Optional question from User:MatthewFenton): Do you go on fair use crusades?
Not sure what you mean exactly. My involvement in images has been extremely minimal as an admin, admittedly. I know articles and text copyright issues well, and that's what I felt I was most useful dealing with. I don't recall ever deleting an image because of fair use issues, let alone going on crusades, though I respect that we do need admins who work to make sure our images are liscensed correctly. As for text fair use, which is a less common issue, you can see a recent argument I made on the subject here
6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Established user" is a subjective term, but generally it's the same as with any kind of user: block when it is clear that a user has no intent to cease a given behavior that is disruptive in some way. Established users are just a lot less likely to suddenly reach that level of disruption than unestablished ones. Blocks are to prevent, not to punish; despite what some have said, I strongly believe in that approach. Again though, I wasn't exactly dishing out the controversial blocks... in 8 months, there was just this one.
Thanks for that Marsh. Could you clarify some examples of disruption which would lead you to block an established user.--Mcginnly | Natter 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean disruption as in vandalism obviously, but also personal attacks or threats, harassment, legal threats, and yes, disruptive trolling (although I would handle the latter differently, as stated elsewhere on this page). In general, stuff that I believe does need to stop or it will disrupt the quality of our articles. --W.marsh 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've still got a few problems with this you might be able to help me with. 1)the definition of a personal attack is really quite subjective - a person may feel attacked but they may be misconstruing the situation, they may also claim offense when non is really felt - how will you judge this. 2)Are you saying that the way a situation will be handled by you will be exactly the same if the particpants are either an established user or an anonymous IP? 3.)You say you'd block for disruption of our articles - does this include user's talk pages? Sorry to labour this but I'd like to understand your thinking on this subject. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to the definition of personal attacks, it's hard to just pin down what is and isn't a block-worthy personal attack, other than saying "I know it when I see it". I think we can all agree that insulting someone on the basis of their race, religion, personal appearance/characteristics (if known), sexual orientation and stuff like that is A) neither here nore there in a content dispute and B) highly inflammitory, and I think that is the most likely kind of stuff to get blocked. Simply calling someone dumb or whatever, while regrettable, is better delt with by warnings than a block on the first offense. And stuff like "That's a stupid argument", while probably not very civil, I've never felt to be personal attacks - criticism of ideas is important, even if it's not always fun. Nevertheless, it does get called a "personal attack" every on occasion.
Anyway, it's all about whether they're going to actually stop their disruptive behavior. An unwillingness by anyone - newbie or veteran - to stop disruptive personal attacks should be delt with the same way. I don't really think in terms of "Well it's okay to block this person indef because I've never heard of them". I mean, I'm not going to say "well you've made 10,000 edits, it's okay for you to insult people unrepentently" It just doesn't work like that. And on the other hand, say I indefinently block a new user for personal attacks, if they say they won't do it again, unless the personal attacks were like extremely bad, I'm still going to unblock them even though they're a new user. Being an established user should get you some respect, but it shouldn't give you the right to be disruptive. --W.marsh 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, as to user's talk pages, it really depends on the situation. But if someone's just there spouting of personal attacks even on a user talk page, I don't really see why that should be okay. This stuff does come back to effect articles, by creating an overall environment that is problematic for people who want to write good articles. E.g. if I write an article and someone calls me a retard on my talk page for not formatting it right... well gee, that doesn't make me want to write another article very much. By the way, would you mind if we moved this to the talk page? It's getting a bit lengthy. --W.marsh 03:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • One mistake does not a bad admin make. The only issue here is whether or not W.marsh can be trusted with the tools (experience is a non-factor, as he obviously has quite a bit of experience successfully using the extra buttons), and I believe he can. It's not uncommon for users to become frustrated, and while I think W.marsh's requesting to be desysopped was rather overdramatic, it's understandable given the stress he's alluded to. I think that this was an isolated incident; a small blemish on an otherwise near spotless experience working on Wikipedia. I have no reservations supporting the candidate's request for re-adminship. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user would make a great admin. --Rory096 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm putting this here so this comment does not get lost. For this RfA request, I'd like to ask the bureaucrats to consider discretionary shortening or waivering of the typical 7 day grace period before promotion decisions are made.
    I was the first administrator to unblock in the ordeal, and W.marsh the first to reinstate the initial block about 7 hours later. A lot can be said about the incident, but that is for another day on Wikipedia.
    To keep this brief, I'd like to see W.marsh with the sysop bit again. His use of the tools are consistent with furthering the goals of this project, and we can trust him with the freedom of using them properly without reservation. --HappyCamper 22:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
W.marsh deserves the promotion all right, but having a bureaucrat bypass the usual process of waiting for 7 days before closing the discussion would not be a good precedent I believe. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this should run its normal course. — xaosflux Talk 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I third that. In this case, he should glide right through but, in other cases of admins falling on their swords, readmission may be debatable. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First support – his many months of previous administrative experience gives me complete confidence and trust in him. — FireFox (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2006
  2. Support. I think W.marsh has been a fine admin, in all the cases I've noticed. I missed all the drama from earlier this month, but from the links W.marsh has given, it doesn't seem so bad, at least not as wikidrama goes. And W.marsh's apology seems admirably blunt and straightforward. --Allen 19:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I participated to an extent in that Masssiveego discussion. Considering the circumstances (People defending such an obvious troll who needed to be gotten rid of), I don't think your attitude during it is any reason to deny re-adminship. -- Steel 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Works for me. One of my favorite admins prior, and looks like he'll continue to be in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (quadruple edit conflict) Strong support. W.marsh was an excellent contributor and editor; I was sorry to see him temporarily leave the project a few weeks ago, and pleased when he returned. W. was also an excellent administrator and should be allowed to pick up where he left off without further ado. Based on recent precedent that an admin who locked his mop closet voluntarily can request re-sysoping without another RfA, I don't quite understand Taxman's position that that precedent doesn't apply in this instance and that a new RfA is required - W.marsh may have been in a "conflict" about a particular block, but that doesn't mean he resigned rather than deal with the consequences of that conflict, or anything of that nature - but since the candidate doesn't seem to be complaining too much about being called upon for a re-Rfa, I suppose there's no point in pursuing the matter. For what it's worth, I personally disagreed with the MassiveEgo block and thought that W.marsh overreacted to the criticism he received at that time; but everyone gets fed up with someone or something at one time or another, for one reason or another, and that's hardly the reason to deprive the project of his services as an admin. Newyorkbrad 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I believe that one incident with Masssiveego was not that bad and I have seen W.marsh doing a great amount of good work closing deletions discussions, so giving him back the tools would be a good thing to do. However, I would have been very opposed to him getting the tools without going through an RfA. That "I screwed up/I quit/Please pardon me out of process" mode of action would be a bad idea in the long run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support. I see no problems here at all. Time to get the mob and bucket back.Voice-of-All 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Most of the time I really love that Wikipedia has a higher standard for civility among users than any other online (I'm going to avoid using the word community and drastically compromise by saying "thingy") that I've encountered. But in this case, well... another, pretty obviously provocative user got under W.marsh's skin, he (probably) overreacted out of frustration, others made (somewhat compelling, but possibly overly strong) arguments in the other user's defense and W.marsh had a (self-admitted) "hysterical" reaction and left the project. In other words, he behaved the way that pretty much anyone I've ever respected and liked in other online situations has done at least once, and now he's owning it and apologizing for it. A good admin, a no-brainer. Dina 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support. Even after reviewing the whole incident, I consider W.marsh still a great admin. Welcome back and best of luck with the RfA. I only hope that people will realize that not everyone is perfect, and your actions in this one instance do not represent the character and personality of the overall user. --Nishkid64 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Did lots of good work previously and seems balanced enough in responses to questions above to behave responsibly with the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support OK, indeed AGF. Tyrenius 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kusma (討論) 20:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support W.marsh was a great admin, and will continue to be one.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, glad to have you back.-gadfium 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I thought he already was one.  ;-) Seriously though, even to the extent his actions were mistaken they were not abusive. He'll be a good hand with the mop again. Eluchil404 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Will be a good vandalhunter. Is a good editor. Hello32020 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Deserves another chance, I think. --Alex | talk / review me | 21:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support We should have a "speedy" admin for cases like this. :) Spartaz 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. And I usually don't vote on RfAs. Nandesuka 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: Always civil and fair. Certainly seems to have earned enough credits to withstand a mini-meltdown. This is an easy one... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I wish W.marsh would work on more articles like shotgun house, but if he wants to do admin chores again, he should be able to. DVD+ R/W 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per the above eloquent reasons. Should be given the mop back. --physicq210 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support (see top section for details) --HappyCamper 22:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. DarthVader 22:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom. Michael 23:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I never knew he was de-sysopped. —Khoikhoi 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I admire W.marsh's frank manner. Although please don't loose your cool - a wikibreak may be in order. Rama's arrow 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support with exactly the same concerns as Fama's Arrow. Rje 23:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Absolutely no reason he shouldn't be allowed back. --Aaron 00:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support an ex-admin who gave up the tools of his own free will. Why not? - Mike 00:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Come on back 'round now. Next time things get heated, try a WikiBreak though! — xaosflux Talk 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support One of the best. Yanksox 00:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Looking at the links it appears the only mistake he made was questioning his own judgment. — CharlotteWebb 01:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Of course, I certainly believe in a second chance for this.-- danntm T C 01:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--a bit grudgingly, but only because i really wish people wouldn't give up their admin status so quickly in such situations. ;) But a good admin, certainly trustworthy, and a conflict over how to deal with a troll shouldn't bar one from adminship. --heah 01:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - just hit Special:Makesysop and save us a little bit of diskspace :) -- Tawker 01:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Well for what it's worth, I like the way you acted in that conflict. We can't expect admins to be angels, and sometimes excessively disruptive editors deserve a good thumping. Glad to support.UberCryxic 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, and welcome back. Jonathunder 04:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support Excellent administrator before, will be again. Xoloz 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Easily passes the "one-bad-day" rule. The Massiveego problem was that, one bad day, and nothing else makes me belive he would misuse or abuse the tools. Titoxd(?!?) 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Everything I've seen of his work has contributed to a most favorable impression. --RobthTalk 06:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC) People do fumble under pressure.[reply]
  44. Support. I don't want to comment again in detail about the Massieveego issue, but W.marsh shouldn't be desysopped because of this (not even by himself :). But I do still have some strong doubts whether that block was justified and I would appreciate if it would be possible to openly discuss a block on WP:ANI without having the blocking admin taking this as questioning his adminship. If you don't want to be publicly scrutinized, then don't take it to WP:ANI. WP:ANI is not a "backing-up your fellow admin" club. Secondly, if an admin requests to be desysopped because he/she is about to leave, then they should get the admin bits back per their request when they return. --Ligulem 08:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Bandwagon. --Golbez 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: blocking is over-used in contentious situations. I hope you are more generous next time. Stephen B Streater 08:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Welcome back. utcursch | talk 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --WinHunter (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support If he was once an admin, I don't see why not. Grand Slam 7 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support. Having spent half an hour reading up on the reasons for your leaving, I'm very sad that you did so at all. Welcome back. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 11:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, too scared to join the empty space below me ;) But seriously, welcome back. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 13:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support And thanks for your patience with the questions - Good luck!--Mcginnly | Natter 13:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support.--Andeh 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Merovingian - Talk 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Good editor and (was) a good admin. Garion96 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Duh. Excellent editor, glad to see he's decided to pick the tools back up. Get to work! Support ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, of course; obvious one. Welcome back. Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Edit conflict, WP:SNOW support. I've actually been keeping an eye on W.marsh following the Massiveego situation and I've been very impressed with him and his behavior. He's always been an excellent admin and I have full confidence that the project will benefit immediately after he gets his extra buttons back. Srose (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Sorry, W.Marsh, I hadn't checked RFA all week, or I would have commented sooner. I'm glad you've returned, and there was no reason for you to give up the tools. You're a good user, and a good admin. Best wishes on your second adminship. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support. Wow. Not supporting this should be considered a personal attack. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Talks and acts sense all the way. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support No worries at all. Good admin in the past and will be in the future. --FloNight 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support allow this user to continue to be a good admin --rogerd 19:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Of course --Ixfd64 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support The evidence is clear here. He must be given the extra tools back. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Good contribs and good editor. Makes the cut to admin --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Tony Sidaway 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Was obviously in need of a brief break, but a very good admin overall.[reply]
  68. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-09-24 22:25Z
  69. Support Great editor. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:08 (UTC)
  70. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Good admin who was understandably not used to criticism. --CBD 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Anger22 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support somewhat superfluous RfA for a very good admin -- Samir धर्म 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Very civil and experienced; was a great admin before and will continue to be a great admin.--TBCTaLk?!? 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Welcome back abakharev 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Valuable contributor and top Admin. Jpe|ob 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per samir. pschemp | talk 02:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. "Support dripping from a dead dog's eye..."--SB | T 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Man you should have seen him kicking Edgar Allan Poe -- Samir धर्म 05:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Cooling-down period has served its purpose. Scobell302 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support no problems.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support huh?  Grue  05:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support good admin.--Dakota 06:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Obvious support per...well, everyone. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per Sean Black!  Jorcoga  09:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per all the above. Metamagician3000 11:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support -- welcome back. - Longhair 12:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support to help this get into WP100. The Land 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Of course! Great to have you back! - Glen 13:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support absolutely. Gwernol 16:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support JoshuaZ 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Couldn't care less about anything other than the fact that you were a great admin, so will be again. —Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support (Liberatore, 2006). 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Was a solid, active admin and certainly will be again. --Satori Son 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. If we don't give the best to the best of editors who help to literatelly write the encyclopedia to write the encyclopedia, then I really do not know what else can be done. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Pile-on support. Was (is?) a great admin, without question. Grandmasterka 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. -- MarcoTolo 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And IH brings us to WP:100. Welcome back, W.marsh. Newyorkbrad 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Pile-on support that's here to add emphasis, W.marsh was a great admin. I'm absolutely positive he'll be a great admin once again. --Coredesat talk! 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. I'm-Afraid-To-Join-The-Blank-Space-Below-This-Support as per fear of being the only one not to support. Also appears to be an excellent editor, should make a great admin again. Canadian-Bacon t c e 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Sure thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. SupportJeffklib 07:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support--MONGO 08:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, of course. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, is it an addiction? ;) Conscious 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I see no problems here. Sorry for piling on ;-) JungleCat talk/contrib 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support as many have written better than I can - Newyorkbrad, Dina, Ligulem to name only a few. From his general comments, W. Marsh seems to be better than that one incident, and admits himself at fault. None of are perfect, failure makes some of us better, it looks like W.Marsh is of that latter group. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Yessir. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/W.marsh_2&oldid=1143863657"