Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cnwb

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] Cnwb

Final (38/0/0) ended 07:47 4 December at 07:30 (UTC)

Cnwb (talk · contribs) – Okay, I'm going for broke and nominating myself. I've been a Wikipedian for a little over a year now, and have made 3194 edits. I am primarily interested in contributing to Australian articles, mostly pertaining to Melbourne and Victoria. I have 1351 items on my watchlist, which I keep a keen eye on, reverting vandalism and copyediting. I would like to become an administrator in order to enhance my usefulness in dealing with vandals, and to take a more active role in dealing with merging articles and AfD. I feel it is time I took the next step in my Wikiepdia involvement. --Cnwb 07:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept (self-nom) Cnwb 07:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. First post Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Although I hope you'll be increase your activity here though, since that edit count is pretty low for being here over a year. But I still support. Quentin Pierce 08:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. Cnwb is a very dedicated editor, and certainly admin material; I've never seen him react badly to anyone. I think above all else, the effort he put into proving beyond doubt that the hoax article discussed below was indeed a hoax shows his suitability to be an admin. Furthermore, had I known that he was interested, I'd have happily nominated him myself. Ambi 10:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Contributions look good. Support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Yep, Support per Ambi. Snottygobble | Talk 11:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. support quite a lot of very quick research for Davido, and very gracious in trying to encourage a couple of bored high school students to become useful contributors despite having caused all that effort. --Scott Davis Talk 12:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Good editor --Rogerd 12:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Good contributor who would get great benefit from admin tools -- Ian ≡ talk 13:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, I fully second Ambi's comment above. Rje 13:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Very Strong Support I was intending to nominate you myself. Cnwb is very much a deserving Wikipedian, who will serve the community even better than he does presently with the extension of administrator tools. --cj | talk 14:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Merovingian 17:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Robert T | @ | C 20:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Staxringold 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Happy to Support. --Roisterer 04:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Sarah Ewart 04:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Michael Snow 05:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. What Ambi said. JPD 10:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support - probably not insane - David Gerard 11:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    David, if that's your criteria for adminship, you and I both better resign our sysops. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    These days I find it's a nice bonus. Anyone who thinks becoming an admin is hard is on crack should look more closely at some of 'em ... (Not that I would name any. Remember, I love everyone.) - David Gerard 12:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support per reason why I vote for every qualified Antipodean RfA. Youngamerican 13:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support MONGO 16:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support, per nom ;-) BD2412 T 19:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. -- DS1953 04:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support - has done a lot of work particularly on Australian articles. Capitalistroadster 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support, agree with all the statements above. --bainer (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support Izehar 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support abakharev 22:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support as per nominator.  ;-) Hall Monitor 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support Looking good, gets my support Gryffindor 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support -- a good editor, a worthy candidate for adminship. - Longhair 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support - a great Aussie editor who is ready to step up. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. --Jaranda(watz sup) 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support per Capitalistroadster. Ben Aveling 22:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support of course! Chuq 01:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support good work.--Vsion 02:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Have had good interactions with this user in the past.--Alhutch 02:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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. I believe the rollback function would enhance my usefulness at Wikipedia immensely, since I am often reverting vandalism to articles on my watchlist. I also believe I can play a role in blocking persistent vandals. I have been adding the appropriate vandalism tags to the talk pages of vandals, and feel administrator priveledges will enhance my role in this process.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am quite proud of Kate Kelly, not only for the fact I find her an intriguing character from Australian history, but also because I got the ball rolling on the article with a lot of information straight up. I am also proud of the research I did in proving the town of Davido, Victoria, did not exist: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davido, Victoria, and in proving the existence of Burnt Bridge: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt Bridge, Victoria (much of the resultant information is now in Croydon, Victoria). Both of these cases presented me with the opportunity to do what I love most about Wikipedia - historical research.
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 cannot think of any example of a heated conflict I have been involved in. I believe I have approached every potential Wiki-conflict with calmness and diplomacy. I always try to explain any major changes I feel need to be made to articles, in order to give others the chance to put their opinions forward.
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.