Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cholmes75 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Cholmes75

Final (64/0/0) Ended Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:19:59 (UTC)

Cholmes75 (talk · contribs) – Cholmes was a pupil of admin coaching under myself and Hoopydink. While I was coaching him, I came to the realization that the coaching was completely unnecessary, considering he was alreadly well versed and understood Wikipedia policy. Cholmes contributes quite well to articles (he has heavily contributed to five Good articles), is a nice guy, valuable to the project, and does solid work on the "non-admin yet admin" aspect of the project. I believe he has stepped out of the shadow of the oppose opinions that was expressed on his previous RfA. He has now, in my honest opinion, become an ideal Wikipedian.

Downlow stolen from Gwernol/Crzrussian
  • Edit Count? Over 12,000 (7,000 in mainspace; 900 on Wikipedia)
  • Time Around? Almost a year and a half
  • Civility? Yes, is a nice guy and also has a sense of humor.
  • Edit Summaries? 100% of the time
  • Mistakes? He can make mistakes, but everyone does. He is understanding of his limitations and works to improve upon them.
  • E-mail? Yes.
  • Userpage clean? Yes, and more importantly, is very informative.
  • Any edit warring/blocks? Doesn't edit war nor has been blocked.
  • FA Participation? List of NFL champions and has stated assistance in help pushing articles for FA status.

Wikipedia has benefited greatly from Cholmes, let's give him the chance to enhance his role on the 'pedia. Yanksox 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly and happily accept the nomination. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:17, 4 November 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As mentioned on my last RfA, I look forward to pitching in with image backlogs, speedy deletions, Prods, and XfD discussions (closing, of course). I would also like to assist with WP:AIV. Oh, and I don't want to forget WP:CP, another area of concern for me. I will also continue to pitch in on WP:DEAD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am very happy to have been involved with numerous Good Articles, but of those I am most proud of Winfield Scott (ship) (which I nursed from a stub [1]), Crazy Eddie, and Civil War token (which I created). I put a lot of work into Dime (United States coin), and hoped to have it as a GA/FA by now. That'll be a project I pick up again in the future. I was also happy to be able to get WikiProject Jazz started, as I think Jazz articles tend to be overlooked compared to other music-related articles. I'm glad to see the positive response it has received from the community.
I recently came across Lake Carnegie (New Jersey), which when I first saw it was one big copyvio [2]. I decided that rather than just blank 'n' tag it as such, I would endeavor to improve it. The work is ongoing, but I think it's much better now.
On the more gnomish side - I have tagged more suspect images than I can remember, have reported a large number of copyvios, and have done my fair share of vandal reverting.
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: Since my last RfA, I don't think I've been involved in any major disputes (at least not from my perspective). Oh, I still get the usual userpage vandalism and unkind remarks from people, which usually spring from reverting vandalism or tagging suspect images. But I do my best to not inflame the situation, and to not take it personally. As far as the future - the best way I find to avoid getting "down and dirty" is to realize that there is another person on the end of connection. It's not just some faceless computer I'm dealing with. Keeping that in mind seems to do the trick.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support As nominator. Yanksox 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (damnit; I had some delightfully sardonic comments about my beating Yanksox to support in a fashion not unlike that by which the Yankees smacked around the Red Sox this year [eleven games to eight, IIRC] but he snuck in ahead of me) per nom and inasmuch as Cholmes appears to be possessed of the deliberative temperament, reasoned judgment, and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a propsective admin are quite auspicious, such that I am eminently confident that he will neither abuse nor misuse the tools and that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (my RfA standard). Joe 20:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Edit-conflict support. The candidate knows what he's doing with images (he both uploads and explains the image policies to newcomers), participates in lots of XfDs, nominates deletion-worthy articles for deletion quite frequently (always using the right template, too!), and is civil to boot. Srose (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I've seen Cholmes around on some of the sports pages, with nothing but good contributions. Also, helpful with image copyright issues, vandal fighting, etc. --Aude (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - per Srose, as upload log appears flawless. Also didn't see anything in the previous nom to cause me to worry --T-rex 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support hang on I though this was a different guy, this guy definately passes my criteria†he Bread 22:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. He's not an admin already??? - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support "298 KISS (band)". Damn good article builder. Nishkid64 22:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - Anyone who puts that much time into Wikipedia, and contributes as much as this individual, it's obvious that this user should be given Admin Status.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randoley (talk • contribs)
  11. Support. Sound editor, hard worker (especially given the rate of pay), nothing to indicate potential for problems. Guy 23:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Hearty Support as co-admin coach. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support seems like a dedicated editor who knows what he's doing. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Knows how to edit an article well, plenty of experience. Since the problems highlighted in his last RfA he appears to use policy correctly and has no major transgressions in my opinion. Can only be good for the project. Rockpocket 02:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I see no cons. Experienced user who'll make a fine admin.--Húsönd 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support Shows commendable civility with other users. All-around great user. --Db099221 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support. He wont abuse the tools, that's for sure --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 03:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per nom. Michael 04:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support User has recieved very good training and shows excellent experience.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak support - crz crztalk 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Aye, seems unlikely to abuse tools. riana_dzasta 10:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Looks like an experienced user. NauticaShades 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Well-coached, will wield the mop wisely. KrakatoaKatie 10:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support good dedicated user, works on NI page, wouldn't dare to abuse the tools. feydey 10:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support A very civil and dedicated user of this project. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Very experienced user, that wouldn't abuse the tools. Hello32020 12:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support --Alex (Talk) 12:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support per above. Addhoc 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - probably unnecesssary vote but this editor looks impressive. Moreschi 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Support(edit conflict) looks good.-- danntm T C 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    One opine per customer. Yanksox 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  32. Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support This looks like another good candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 19:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support per everything above. I see no problems at this time. Newyorkbrad 20:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Another good one --Steve 01:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Impressive, civil, just give him the tools! ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Good user who will use the admin tools wisely --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support per everything above.  Doctor Bruno  17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - FireSpike 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support One customer's opine --NMChico24 10:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  42. Elementary, my dear Cwatson. >Radiant< 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Sounds good, noticed him several months bag doing good work with some backlog or another, that's always a sign of a good potential admin. Should be an asset if given the tools. --W.marsh 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Appears to have what I look for in an admin. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  45. Merovingian ※ Talk 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Has made a great deal of progress since the last RFA (which I opposed) and is fit for the mop now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 13:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per all. Bucketsofg 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support per experience, great article work, good encounters on my part, and all of the above. Dar-Ape 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support - this guy is an excellent Wikipedia editor, can't see anything wrong with him. Let him be admin! --SunStar Net 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support on EA's behalf. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    Say what?? I wasn't aware that Esperanza was a PAC. -- SCZenz 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  52. Strong support. Been very helpful in my experience. -- SCZenz 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support per everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support per nom. John254 05:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per nom. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 12:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support - I've had some dealings with Cholmes75 in my time and they would do very well with the tools. A conscientious and careful editor who keeps on top of things, doesn't let things get to him and is friendly. Ben W Bell talk 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Looks like a solid candidate, A-OK. We need to go and get you a mop… JungleCat talk/contrib 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support I have noticed Cholmes' edits around, and I am happy to support this nomination. James086 Talk | Contribs 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  59. El_C 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Zaxem 10:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support semper fi — Moe 17:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Looks good. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Wikipedia needs more admins. Sharkface217 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. What I've seen has been positive. AnnH ♫ 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Violates WP:NOR, and WP:SPAM, called another user a "fucking retard" and also insulted another user at the George W. Bush talk page, calling him a "motherfucking pervert" --Velcorx 11:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide links to these infractions for the rest of us, please? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about that one - user indef blocked as a SPA troll for RfA opposing (at least Velcorx didn't impersonate Phaedriel here... [3] [4]). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship 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.