Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smurrayinchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Smurrayinchester

final (31/11/2) ending 17:05 23rd January 2006 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester (talk · contribs) – I've been at Wikipedia for about 7 months, plus some time before as an anon, and have accumulated 1688 edits. However, some features of Wikipedia, notably trying to stop vandalism, are more difficult without rollback/blocking etc. and I hope that with these abilities I'll be able to better help Wikipedia. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my nomination. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support looks like a strong contributor to the project --TimPope 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - so long as you don't stop your ASUE work! --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support ☺ APclark Be nice not nasty 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Youngamerican 19:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Nothing but praise for your contributions here. Take a mop and bucket. David | Talk 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support good worker. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
7. King of All the Franks 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Izehar 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
10. About time he got keys to the janitor's cupboard Thryduulf 00:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Now you owe me one--Piedras grandes 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
12. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, he'll do. JIP | Talk 09:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Keep on with the vandal-fighting.-Colin Kimbrell 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. 7 months is long enough. -- Eddie 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
16. --Signed by Chazz - Responses to (responses). @ 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Support — Moe ε 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Support good editor --rogerd 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Sarah Ewart 11:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Support --Terence Ong 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Full support - excellent contributor and good attitude; would definitely make a great admin. Rational thinker, too. Igor the Lion^(Roar!) 20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Support per Igor the Lion. -- Eddie 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    You have already voted. NSLE _(T+C) 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

22. Support for good edits and attitude. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, good edits. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, despite him being Chester scum. We shall crush you when the game is finally rescheduled. Proto t c 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Interactions with him have been pleasant and hence, I do not expect his relative inexperience to be an indicator of abuse of admin tools. --Gurubrahma 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, and not just because I believe in more Brits in Wikipedia. A positive contributor, and a worthy recipient of my vote. haz (user talk) 21:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, as per autonominator.  ;-) Hall Monitor 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
28. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. jnothman ^talk 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Latinus 17:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools, need more admins. - Haukur 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose [1] Short tempered, no three warning as per wikipedia policy. --Masssiveego 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   When it's a known vandal IP, three warnings aren't needed. There is no such policy either. NSLE _(T+C) 09:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Not enough edits to make a valid assessment of suitability as an admin, nor enough edits to adequately learn all the things that even beginning admins should know. ^BlankVerse 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   • Oppose, too much leeway on userboxes, anti-American. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
     • Comment Could you elaborate? ~MDD4696 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose, 1700 edits in 7 months equates to lack of activity. Radiant_>|< 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Still too new. Pschemp | Talk 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Per Radiant.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose, not dedicated enough to become admin. Wellmann 01:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Please see my RfA criteria, especially introductory paragraph. --Petros471 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - too new. CDThieme 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Radiant. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Radiant. Xoloz 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Too few edits. Sorry, nothing personal. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I've seen nothing but good contributions from the nominee, but I'd like to see a higher edit count. --TantalumTelluride 05:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per TantalumTelluride (and really, Radiant!). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 87% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 17:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• See information about Smurrayinchester's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
• No email address set. --TheParanoidOne 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have set up email since. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Discussion over Massiveego's oppose vote plus warn policy (reason behind Massiveego's vote) moved to talk page. NSLE _(T+C) 10:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. As I said above, primarily I'd like to help against vandalism and join CVU, but I'd also be fine with helping with the various deletion polls.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm fairly pleased with my articles on the Coping With books and Elderado Dingbatti (my first articles, I think) but more recently some of my templates (those used on WP:ASUE for example or template:Infobox British television) because I feel that templates make Wikipedia move more smoothly and appear more professional.

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. So far I've managed to pretty much avoid conflicts, and generally I just try to see both sides of the argument and change my actions if necessary, and then hopefully try to move on from the dispute.

4 What is your stand on the userbox controversy? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A. I've got no problem with most userboxes, in fact I think they help 'summarise' a user. However, I admit I'm not too keen on the attack userboxes, even when I agree with the sentiment understand their purpose (such as User-AmE-0). However, I am likewise opposed to the deletion-blitzing they are undergoing at the moment, and the unilateral deletions that occured over the New Year.

5 What is your view of fair use images on User pages? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A. I can see what the problem is, but as long as there's a use for them, I think it's perfectly justifyable.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.