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)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept my nomination. smurrayinchester(
User), (
Talk) 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
Support looks like a strong contributor to the project --
TimPope 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Support, despite him being
Chester scum.
We shall crush you when the game is finally rescheduled.
Prototc 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Support, as per autonominator. ;-)
Hall Monitor 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools, need more admins. -
Haukur 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose[1] Short tempered, no three warning as per wikipedia policy. --
Masssiveego 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Oppose, too much leeway on userboxes, anti-American.
User:Zoe|
(talk) 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Could you elaborate? ~
MDD4696 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, 1700 edits in 7 months equates to lack of activity.
Radiant_>|< 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Still too new.
Pschemp |
Talk 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Neutral per TantalumTelluride (and really, Radiant!). —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 10:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Have set up email since. smurrayinchester(
User), (
Talk) 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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)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. 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)reply
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)reply
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.