Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lacrimosus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lacrimosus

final (36/1/0) ending 08:28 11 August 2005 (UTC) Lacrimosus (talk · contribs) - I've been around since June 2004 and in that time have made a variety of contributions, mostly to topics relating to Australia and Australian politics, but also a fair few copyedits, brushups and table adjustments, in articles ranging from Holy Roman Emperors to Infinite Jest and shaggy dog story. I tend to treat the Wikipedia as a reader and an editor in equal parts. Some contributions are listed here. I've made 4727 edits. --Slac speak up! 08:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support: I was actually thinking of editors that should be nominated for Adminship, and Slac was among them. From what I have seen of his work, I am greatly impressed, and I think it's safe to say that he can be trusted wholeheartedly with Admin abilities.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Responsible editor that I've had good interactions with. Give this man a mop!!!! Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. obviously dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Solid, dedicated editor. Redux 14:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support - Of course! Sango123 15:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Michael Snow 16:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support --AYArktos 21:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Excellent contributor, and I am surprised this editor was not one already. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. I will support.  Denelson83  00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support I'm proud to say that this is my first "thought he already was one" vote. I see 'Slac' all the time, and never realized that that wasn't your real username. :P Ryan 00:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  12. --Jusjih 04:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Merovingian (t) (c) 04:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, prolific article space editor. --bainer (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Happy to Support --Roisterer 08:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support very good contributor of articles and edits. David | Talk 14:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support- great deal of edits, it'll be good to have an admin capable of doing something other than procedural stuff Cynical 15:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. The usual "thought he already was one" business. Also, I'd be inclined to think anyone who can make it all the way through Infinite Jest has both the patience and the ability to make sense of long-running, complex situations and drawn-out fragmented discussions beneficial to an admin. ;-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, on the condition that we get to know why Lacrimosus is abbreviated as Slac. Seriously, though, good contributor to VfD.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Android79 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 August 2005
  20. Support -- Longhair | Talk 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support, why not. --Sn0wflake 16:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, bien sur. JFW | T@lk 22:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Edits indicate no cause for concern, positive contributions. Jayjg (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support Give him the Mop!--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 09:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Slac always seems to make well-considered contributions to talk pages and valuable edits to articles. --ScottDavis | Talk 14:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Edits and interactions with others seem exemplary. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Happy to support. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Yes. Func( t, c ) 04:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support, excellent candidate. —Stormie 06:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. JYolkowski // talk 23:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Lacrimosus makes a lot of great article contributions and does a lot of work. He has almost 5000 edits now and looks like an excellent candidate for administrator. Support. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support Good edits, strong candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support FeloniousMonk 01:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Someone should have nominated Lacrimosus long ago.
  35. Support. El_C 02:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Lots of good edits. The only person who seems to oppose this also voted against every single other nom. --Briangotts (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit count for Lacrimosus at Kate's tool. At the time of this post, says 4,739 total edits, with 3,248 edits to articles. Redux 14:11, 4 August 2005 (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 Mostly vandalism reverts, along with the occasional deletion debate closure. If accepted, I would ease myself in to admin functions gradually, holding off from contentious exercises of them until I feel more comfortable.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A I don't have any clear standouts, but I have improved some articles related to the Premiers of Queensland, such as Rob Borbidge and Robert Philp. I also am responsible for political faction, Infinite Jest and the articles related to CityTrain, the railway network of Brisbane. As the first article I edited while logged in, I was quite pleased when Mark Latham was featured.
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 was involved with a number of other editors in the dispute with GRider. I've had a few minor altercations with various users, of mild severity and limited duration. I think in most cases I'm capable of assuming good faith and my experience with GRider and deletion debates has taught me that It's A Big Wiki and that avoiding disputes will help me live longer :).