Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Craigy144

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Craigy144

final (13/0/1) ending 09:44 04 July 2005 (UTC)

Craigy has been here since the end of October 2004 and has done a great deal of work on the spoken Wikipedia, on image tagging, providing usable images, writing peerage-related articles and welcoming new users. He is a fellow member of the Club of UK Wikipedians known to have edited past 3:30 AM. I think he would benefit from adminship in his image work and with his permission I'm nominating him. David | Talk 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)

I accept this nomination and thanks David; it's nice to know one's contributions are generally well-liked. Craigy (talk) June 28, 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Support

1. Let me be the first to support, pending Craigy's acceptance of the nomination. Any British Wikipedian who stays up till 5am to get specific tasks done (a man after my own heart) is good for the job. -- Francs2000 | Talk 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
2. Naturally as nominator I support. David | Talk
3. Has shown real dedication to the project and has also shown himself to be trustworthy. Rje June 28, 2005 15:47 (UTC)
4. As a British wikipedian editing in the small hours - support! :-) Shimgray 29 June 2005 05:00 (UTC)
5. Cool. JuntungWu 29 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)
6. Support, 3:30, that is dedication. Bluemoose 29 June 2005 11:37 (UTC)
7. Yeah why not. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 17:39 (UTC)
8. Support. A monarchist busy adding pictures to Wikipedia. Sure. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 17:46 (UTC)
9. support perhaps a little light on edits, but his heart is in the right place.  ALKIVAR™ 29 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)
10. Support. One finds the nominee very well-qualified. Above unsigned vote made by Lord Emsworth. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)
11. Support, although i've edited part 4:30AM once or twice. Hedley 30 June 2005 21:31 (UTC)
12. Support. Useful and reasonable contributor, should make a good admin. (Supporting despite his following the alarming trend of adding symbols to signatures.) -Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:49 (UTC)
13. Blimey!. What's with all the British Wikipedians who insist on having a flag or coat of arms in their signatures? Oh well. Support anyway. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 1 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral. Just falls short of the required nine months of contributions for me to give a support vote. Denelson83 3 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Comments

• Kate's Tools appears to be down for the Mediawiki 1.5 update but my calculation is that Craigy144 has 3,320 edits right now: 1,834/43 to main namespace, 120/397 to User, 110/6 to Wikipedia, 670/0 to Image, 119/3 to Template and 18/0 to Category. David | Talk 28 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)

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

A CryptoDerk's tool is a godsend and although I haven't used it lately, I do intend to watch recent edits and revert vandalism once I've sorted through the whole of Category:Images with unknown source and the rollback feature would be helpful. As an admin, I'd like to add spoken files (where needed) to the Wikipedia guideline pages which are protected.

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

A. Although John Kenney did most of the work, I was quite chuffed at sorting through the peerage articles and putting them in smaller categories as opposed to the broader Category:Peers. I'm also quite impressed with how WP:WSW is developing and the files I've added.

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. Not really. I suppose the biggest edit war-"ette" was at Alexandra of Denmark over the placement of a table here but me and the other user came to a compromise. I wasn't particularly pleased about this edit but unless there is a drastic change in an article, I won't worry about it and I'd probably visit any article, where my changes have been reverted, in a few weeks and see how it could be bettered from there.