Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icairns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Icairns

final (25/0/0) ending 22:21 3 February 2005 (UTC)

Icairns has been around since May of last year, done some good editing and quite a lot of housekeeping (to the tune of exactly 8888 edits as I write this, oddly enough). He is a good collaborator, seems to keep pretty cool, and I think he would be an excellent admin. One thing I particularly noticed is his policy for his user talk page, which is clearly stated but also very polite, admirable skills for anyone to have and especially for admins. --Michael Snow 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am grateful to Michael Snow for his kind nomination, which I am pleased to accept. Ian Cairns 00:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Michael Snow 22:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Michael, who has a good nose for potential admins, points out an excellent one here -- I happily support. Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Good user. Jordi·✆ 22:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carrp 22:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. I've never run into him, but he seems like an exemplary candidate. Lots of good contributions. Also, I like his decision to release edits into the public domain. And support from Michael and James says a lot as well. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. I'm sure he'll be a great admin. Rje 23:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 23:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Ryan! | Talk 00:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. -- jni 06:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. 8888 edits, another long-time steady editor. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 08:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  12. dab (ᛏ) 11:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. SWAdair | Talk 11:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:29, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Darwin 20:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Lst27 (talk) 21:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. --JuntungWu 05:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. This user is one of the few, the fine. Phils 17:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Neutralitytalk 06:44, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Looks good. --fvw* 00:12, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  21. Will make a fine admin. -- Grunt   ҈  00:45, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  22. Frazzydee|✍ 01:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. utcursch 03:43, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  24. A good choice. No need to answer questions in bold, though. Warofdreams 17:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  25. Bart133 (t) 01:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Actually, I thought "that's nice" to myself when I saw he'd answered them in bold. We all know the standard questions, and this way the answers (the bit you actually want to read) stands out. --fvw* 18:30, 2005 Feb 1 (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.
I am prepared to assist in the full spectrum of admin chores, and would accept a communal responsibility for these. It is likely that my main effort will continue to be in maintenance / restructuring.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
I was pleased that the whole area around Billion->Long scale was handled carefully / tactfully, but that the requisite factual changes were put into effect. Similarly, Millennium now acknowledges two possible date ranges. Introduction of numerous categories in the science arena.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A.
I think I may have inadvertantly caused a problem with zebibit, yobibit, etc - but learned a valuable lesson. There have also been some discussions with some users who have been dogmatic / pre-judgmental. I like to see a win-win conclusion where possible, providing there is merit on both sides of an argument - reflecting a wider truth. However, this is not always possible.