Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Red Thunder

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

Red Thunder

Hello all. I have been a regular contributor here for the past two months or so, and have done peer reviewing as well as article writing. During the year and a half before I became active here, I had over 16,000 edits to the English Wikipedia. I would use the admin tools mostly for archiving, but also for speedy deletion and copyright violations in obvious cases. Thank you. R.T. 12:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Comments

Comment Looks like this RfA is ready to be closed, it's been over a week since the nomination. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is fine if RfAs run over for proper vetting by the community. However, Red Thunder seems to have disappeared right after this nomination. --SVTCobra 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was a fault on my part. I didn't put up a template but I've been extremely busy over the past week or so. I confirm that I'm still here. I'll be back to full activity by Monday. R.T. 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now back to full activity. R.T. 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose - Much as I appreciate the article-writing and great contributions you have made to this project so far, two months seems a tad short. Would like to see a bit more activity and history of contributions, perhaps another month or two. Keep up the great work on the project and please think about being considered for nomination again at some point in the future. Cirt (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support = changed to Support. Taken some time to look things over a bit more and agree with Brianmc (talk · contribs) that this individual is a positive contributor to the project. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
abstain - Cirt brings up a valid point. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dont recognize the name. Plus we dont have that many speedy deletes. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what I have seen, this user has consistently made beneficial edits, shown a reasonable understanding of policies, and worked towards improving the project. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user can clearly be trusted to be an excellent admin, and we need people archiving. Anonymous101^talk 08:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — I'd be inclined to wait another couple months, but I'm not opposed to this user's RfA. Gopher65_talk 15:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacques Divol (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support no objections ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SVTCobra 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as pass, user promoted. Small number of votes suggests we may need to revisit duration of RfAs. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.