Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Crypto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Matt Crypto

Vote here

(27/0/0) ends 16:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Matt Crypto has 6541 contributions since 10 Mar 2004. As befits his username, his contributions focus heavily on articles related to cryptography. He has shown a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and is respectful of other editors, so I think we would benefit from his help as an administrator. --Michael Snow 16:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. — Matt 17:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Michael Snow 16:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Wow, quite impressive work on cryptography articles! Support.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:53, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 16:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) The crypto guys seem to set high standards - creditable stuff.
  4. Acegikmo1 17:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. David Remahl 18:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) !! I am qute surprised to learn that he wasn't an admin and that he only joined this March!
  6. As part of the crypto cabal, how can I vote no? Seriously though, this is a no brainer. I thought he already was an admin. CryptoDerk 19:18, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Netoholic @ 20:00, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
  8. Jwrosenzweig 20:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) Unquestionably deserving of the long overdue sysopping.
  9. shap(gnyx) 22:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) EBG13 vf n ovg boivbhf, ru?
  10. OMG crypto cabal, time to put you on RFC! (support) ugen64 23:31, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  11. ℛyan! | Talk 14:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Even more contributions than me? I'm so surprised. (Just kidding) Strongly support. --L$T27 23:48, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Fire Star 04:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. An excellent nomination. - David Gerard 14:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. ffirehorse 18:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. I've seen him around, and he did some great work. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:54, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  17. I've never voted on RFA, but I feel I need this time. Support. Nadavspi 01:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. Very nice credentials. Sarge Baldy 05:18, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Mpolo 07:54, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Looks like a very hard worker and will make a good quality admin. -- Grunt   ҈  23:17, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
  21. Aye, support. {Ανάριον} 15:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. Absolutely. Very impressive, high quality edits. - Taxman 22:46, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  23. This is easy. Amceohrsuhy Uegdahwahcuriyebian-caht [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  24. Hell yes. —Stormie 05:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  25. 172 13:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  26. –Andre (talk) 14:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  27. Yet another stellar admin candidate. --Slowking Man 05:11, Oct 7, 2004 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Not as much as some! In addition to bits of housekeeping in crypto articles (page renames and the like), I'd watch Recent Changes more regularly.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. vndd, l rlr t dgs ga vgjc gy Rtst Nywjqmslgy Estyrtjr, vilwi nyrnr km te t antskjnr tjslwdn, eg l vte zklsn mdntenr vlsi sits. l tdeg zklsn dlcn sin vtq sin rltfjtoe agj ANTD tyr LRNT wton gks.
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. Happily, most of the articles I edit are pretty uncontroversial (read "boring"!). There was the somewhat embarrassing (and unresolved) Great Spelling Debate...but seriously, I think there's few editing disagreements that can't be solved by good-natured discussion. — Matt 11:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)