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

Leithp

final (33/0/0) ending 17:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

Leithp ( talk · contribs) – I've been a registered user since the tail end of March 2005. Most of my contributions have been to articles but recently I've been spending more time vandal-fighting. I'd like access to the admin tools (mostly roll-back) in order to make this process a bit easier. For edit-countitis sufferers, I've got 3568 edits (2745 in the mainspace). This is inflated by a ridiculous amount of stub-sorting I did a week or two ago, though. Leithp (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, it's a self-nom...... Leithp (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. Strong support. He's an excellent contributor and very dedicated guy who will surely make a great admin! SoLando ( Talk) 17:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Support. Looks good, based on reviewing Leithp's edit history and a bunch of diffs. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 19:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Support, looks good. — Kirill Lokshin 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. BIG BAGPIPE HEAPED WITH HAGGIS SUPPORT. But the nominator has failed to mention the candidate is also co-author of the (hopefully soon-to-be) Featured Article on General Sir Richard O'Connor. Without his encouragement, help, strategically placed edits and sage advice, I would never have had the courage or confidence to BE BOLD and put it forward. He is a great contributor, colleague and friend, he will make a great addition to the Cabal as well.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Merovingian 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Contributions appear solid.-- MONGO 21:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  8. Support Martin 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  9. Support Seems to be a good editor and good candidate for admin -- rogerd 01:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  10. Support - very good user -- Francs 2000 02:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  11. Support. He has done some great contributing to wikipedia. After reviewing his contributions, it looks like he would be a great admin for wikipedia.-- Activision45 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  12. Support Astrotrain 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  13. Support a scottish soldier to fight the hordes of vandals threatening our fort! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  14. Support - Of course. Sango 123 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  15. Support; good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  16. Support; looks like the perfect candidate for adminship. - Wezzo 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  17. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  18. Support I would like slightly longer answers to the questions below, but he sounds like a good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. -- DS1953 03:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  20. Support. El_C 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  21. Well, yeah, of course. BD2412 T 06:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  22. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  23. Clear support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  24. Everyking 13:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  25. Support Loving the self noms and lack of knee jerkl opposition to them. Gator (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  26. Support, HGB 01:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC). reply
  27. Support, everything looks to be in order here. xaosflux Talk/ CVU 04:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  28. Support seems a well balanced user. I see no reason not to support. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  29. Support -- Jcw69 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  30. Support Izehar ( talk) 19:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  31. Support. We can always use vandal fighters. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  32. Support ε γκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  33. Support. the wub "?!" 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
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. Mostly recent changes patrol, although reviewing new-pages would also be made easier by being able to speedy delete.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Most of my contributions have been copyediting, or odd paragraphs and sentences here and there. Brian Horrocks was the first article I started (if I remember right) and I've been slowly expanding that. He was an important figure in a number of WWII operations and it surprised me that there was no article prior to me starting it. I also quite like Craigellachie Bridge, my only DYK entry, mostly because it eases my guilt about not working on more structural engineering articles.
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. I've been involved in the odd content dispute, a debate over Bernard Montgomery's Irish service springs to mind, but nothing that wasn't conducted in a reasonably civilised manner. I'm a fairly calm person though, and it takes a fair bit to rile me. If I ever get angry about something, I'd like to think that I'd be sensible enough to walk away and let someone else take up the argument. And if no-one else will argue my case, well I'm probably wrong. I'm also fairly fortunate, in some ways, in that most of the articles I edit are wiki-backwaters.
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Leithp&oldid=1142574866"