Meegs (
talk·contribs) – I would like to nominate
Meegs for adminship. Meegs have been a user for four months now and has more than 6,500 edits. Meegs participates in
WP:AFD and
WP:AFC, fights vandalism, creates articles, help users out and does excellent work in
Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and with categories and does good cleanup in general. I think Meegs would make a excellent admin.
Jarandawat's sup 23:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ×Meegs 02:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. His recent handling of a dispute I was involved in (edits from him:
[1][2][3]) showed he has what it takes to be an admin.
Harro5 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. looks just fine.
pschemp |
talk 04:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Going through this user's talk page, Meegs always posts with civility. I am particuarly impressed with the amount of work put into NFL articles.
Isopropyl 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support' great user, excellent potential
gidonb 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support gets my support, good luck to you.
Gryffindor 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support without a doubt. Looks like a responsible editor, very active on
WP:AFC. Judging by Interiot's tool, he is actively editing Wikipedia around the clock. Does he ever sleep?
JIP |
Talk 10:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
#Tentative support, since I have seen this user's good work at AIV and AFC. Awaiting answers to standard questions.
android79 02:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral Almost meets all my requirements except he's relatively new to Wikipedia. Other than that I don't see a problem.
Moeε 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral meets but one condition of my stanards, so won't support, but looks good.
NSLE(
T+
C) at 03:01
UTC (
2006-03-04)
Neutral Superb record for such a short period of time-- already has a barnstar. Clear, insightful thinking and communication. Helpful to others. Will be an excellent admin. My only reservation is the question of sustainablilty. User may be setting a burnout pace.
Mikereichold 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Great potential, just give it a bit more time.
≈ jossi ≈t •
@ 03:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot 02:30, 4 March 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:
A. I know this isn't terribly helpful, but I'd really be willing to help-out wherever there's need. There's a backlog at
WP:CP, so that might be a good place to start. I also have experience with speedy deletion, CFD, and AFD, so those are possibilities too. I am not a big vandal fighter — I mostly crawl up and down the edit history of vandals who cross my watchlist — but I would certainly make use of rollback and blocking powers where appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've created quite a number of short articles, but they're on such disparate topics that it's hard to cluster enough of them together to label as a single serious achievement. For a big, cohesive project that I'm proud of, I'd probably point to one of the big categorization efforts I've been a part of, such as the creation and population of
Category:College football coaches and
Category:National Football League players by team.
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 haven't really been a disputant in any serious conflicts. It's probably due to the uncontroversial topics I frequent, like American football, and my general non-adherence to
WP:BOLD. Whenever I have encountered editors with ideas far from my own, I've always been able to work things out pretty quickly on talk pages. I have also stepped (or stumbled) into a few arguments between others. In those cases I've tried to remain neutral, pointed-out Wikipedia policy, and urged the parties not to take things personally. In the future, if I were involved in something where a consensus or outright agreement is not forthcoming, I would solicit the opinions of uninvolved Wikipedians or take advantage one of the community's resources listed at
WP:DR.
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 talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.