RfA/RfB voting history: Technical 13

Technical 13 has cast 20 support, 4 oppose and 4 neutral votes. The tool was unable to find votes in 0 RfAs/RfBs they've edited.

Supported

• Fenix down (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support per answer to Q5 and I see no other obvious red flags. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• I JethroBT (Successful, edits to page)
  • Strongly Oppose as this "User" can't even pass a simple Turing test.  ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Deor (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support My interactions with this user have always been positive and I think they'll make fine use of the tools. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Mdann52 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • Support as I've seen this editor lead the charge at AfC being the host for backlog drives (which I've done once as co-hosts with him). He's very helpful on many fronts from OTRS to AFC and even at THQ. Mdann would make a fine admin and AfC honestly could use a few more admins for dealing with "admin" only issues that we constantly have to deal with (like salted pages and csd issues). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Cyphoidbomb (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • Support — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Worm That Turned (RfB, Successful, edits to page)
  • Support Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keithbob (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • +1 Support I didn't see any mention of it while quickly skimming through all of this page, but this user has spent a good deal of time helping new editors at WP:THQ as well. Technical 13 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• SarekOfVulcan 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • Support this obviously capable individual. Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• MER-C 3 (Successful, edits to page)
  • Moral oppose on the grounds that MER-C sets the bar too high for everyone else. :p (j/k of course). Technical 13 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Acather96 (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support per the response to my inquiry below. Technical 13 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Writ Keeper (RfB, Successful, edits to page)
  • Support although I really wish he'd do something about those unicode characters in his signature that don't load for me and look bad... Meh, but I digress... Technical 13 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Callanecc (Successful, edits to page)
  • Weak Support in concurrence with Sal above... Technical 13 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Zad68 (Successful, edits to page)
  • Supported by all User:Technical 13/+3, of course. Technical 13 (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• The Interior (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support with all of the dotted is and crossed Ts Technical 13 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Trappist the monk (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support due to the lack of an alternative available option for editing fully protected templates and modules that has found consensus. This user is trustworthy (IMO) and there is no reason to stymie his good intentions to improve an invaluable set of technical entities. Technical 13 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Huon (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support Technical 13 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Anna Frodesiak (Successful, edits to page)
  • Oppose - because she is too good and I fear she will raise the bar beyond a reasonably obtainable level by the time that I want my upcoming RfA to be considered. Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Bilby (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support I give full support of this candidate for no reason other than the fact that the only complaint that the !voters can come up with was a single instance of something that happened over two years ago that there is clearly a GRUDGE there. That being said, this encourages me that Bilby must have a pretty clean track record since that is the best they could come up with. Technical 13 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Addshore (RfB, Successful, edits to page)
  • Support: All of my few experiences with this administrator have had positive tones and peaceful resolutions. I see a lot of good faith in this administrator and they serve as a good role model to myself and other editors in leading by example. All of the answers to the questions above and the responses below in an attempt to clarify misconceptions seem fair and reasonable to me. Technical 13 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• BDD (Successful, edits to page)
  • Support Technical 13 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposed

• Opabinia regalis 2 (Successful, edits to page)
  • Oppose at this time for lack of recent activity. Please come back after six months and I'd be okay, I'd suppose. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• SarekOfVulcan 4 (Successful, edits to page)
  • Oppose: per Snowolf and the answer to Q7 and this user's Leeroy Jenkins methods. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Mentoz86 (Successful, edits to page)
  • Oppose Per DGG and Stfg. - I think you'll make a fine administrator someday, but this is a NOTYET situation for me. Spend some more time at areas other than AfD and Norway/Football to get a better general overview of how the wiki works. Perhaps some time as a NPP or an AfC reviewer may open your mind to a broader spectrum that is important for administrator? Technical 13 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• NewFranco (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • Oppose: Please try again when you have much more experience. Technical 13 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

• Rcsprinter123 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • I need some more time to review here, so I'll park in the neutral camp for the time being. I'll say that this comment indicates to me a difficulty in communicating in a way that will encourage productive discussion while reducing conflict to come to a peaceful resolutions in disputes. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• New Age Retro Hippie 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • Neutral -- I'm afraid after the response to my question in the Oppose section above by the candidate, I was thinking of just opposing as I feel that the answer is TL;DR and more importantly doesn't really answer what I was asking (not to me anyways). However, the note from Salv about it in his support section gave me a little more encouragement to this candidate. The lack of (good, strong) answers in the Q&A section isn't particularly moving me towards support either. I'm not concerned so much with the username, the deletionist/inclusionist mindset, or any of the other nonsense mentioned above, and the slightly lower edit count is actually more of a plus in my mind because that it means to me that we wouldn't be taking a good content editor away from her/his current activities to preform admin activities. So, I'm just going to park my vote here and let others call it. Good luck NARH! Technical 13 (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• TheAustinMan 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • Neutral leaning towards oppose at this time. I think you've made great strides since your last attempt and will become a fine administrator at some point if this doesn't pass now. I could care less about your age or gender or quite frankly, your edit count or size of edit. Not knowing all of the policies or how to create edit technical things like templates or modules are "meh, so what" to me. What I do care about is that you've demonstrated COMPETENCE and some level of CLUE, have the ability and willingness to ask questions or refer an issue to another administrator when you don't know, and finally -- most importantly -- that you pay your weekly dues to me in cookies (okay, last one's just to be funny :p). At this time (and after spending 35-40 minutes looking through your contributions, of which some are truly impressive), I can't say that I'm convinced that you know enough of the policies and have a wide enough concept of all of what the tools are for and what you should (not can) do with them. I also am not convinced at this time that you don't. If you could give me some more good examples of knowing how to deal with tough decisions/difficult other users, asking for help, and contributions to administrator areas (such as XfD, noticeboards (AN, AIV, DRN even), then you may be able to say me to support. Thanks and good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Mdann52 (Unsuccessful, edits to page)
  • Moral support due to the fact that I know how much time this user spends assisting other users (hence the proportionally larger talk space contributions); however, there is still too much room for improvement at this time. I suggest the candidate take some time while he is forced into tablet editing (to avoid typos which seem to be a major issue to some (Really? That's the best you can come up with?)) and read up some more on policies, guidelines, and even a few essays. Not never, but NOT NOW... Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unknown

These are RfAs/RfBs that the user has edited, but the tool was unable to parse a vote for.

Read the documentation, view the source code, or report some bugs.