Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Meegs

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] Meegs

final (56/0/5) ending 02:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Meegs (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Meegs for adminship. Meegs have been a user for four months now and has more than 6,500 edits. Meegs participates in WP:AFD and WP:AFC, fights vandalism, creates articles, help users out and does excellent work in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and with categories and does good cleanup in general. I think Meegs would make a excellent admin. Jaranda wat's sup 23:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ×Meegs 02:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator --Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support looks good to me. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Meets my standards. android79 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Still relatively new, but otherwise a very good editor. DaGizzaChat © 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. His recent handling of a dispute I was involved in (edits from him: [1] [2] [3]) showed he has what it takes to be an admin. Harro5 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. looks just fine. pschemp | talk 04:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --Terence Ong 05:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, In good faith and editor meets my criteria. --ZsinjTalk 08:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Excellent work on WP:AFC and other places. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Excellent potential if it the workload can be kept up! Essexmutant 13:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per Siva1979 Prodego talk 15:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support clearly knows what he's doing. KI 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support a good editor. Dlyons493 Talk 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Rama's Arrow 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support even though the candidate has work for 4 months only while I suggest 6 months.--Jusjih 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. A reletively new user but a very good one. Raven4x4x 06:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support: --Bhadani 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support A most excellent user despite only four months' editing. ☺ -- The pathetic APclark Be nice not nasty 09:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Trustworthy user, shows wisdom. Xoloz 20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. — FireFox • T • 21:34, 5 March 2006
  24. Support. Going through this user's talk page, Meegs always posts with civility. I am particuarly impressed with the amount of work put into NFL articles. Isopropyl 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support' great user, excellent potential gidonb 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Reminds me of me. Mike H. That's hot 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support abakharev 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support --Ugur Basak 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Strong WikiProject National Football League Support good editor.--Alhutch 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Joe I 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - Wynaut? Stifle 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support sounds good to me. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. support good answers. clean up is the right idea. ... aa:talk 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Good editor, very civil. Staxringold 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, sounds good to me as well.  ;) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Go for it! 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. I am proud to support a qualified fellow WP:NFL'er. youngamerican (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Nice 100% edit summary. Oh, and please don't burnout, we need you. :) Gflores Talk 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support - like said at the top, we need you here. --Rob from NY 02:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-09 08:33Z
  44. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support --Allen3 talk 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 21:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Jonathunder 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - Sango123 (e) 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support good editor, should be good administrator. FloNight talk 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oui. —Encephalon 05:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support gets my support, good luck to you. Gryffindor 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support without a doubt. Looks like a responsible editor, very active on WP:AFC. Judging by Interiot's tool, he is actively editing Wikipedia around the clock. Does he ever sleep? JIP | Talk 10:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. KHM03 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Thumbelina 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per everyone else. - Wezzo 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Excellent editor. Chairman S. Talk 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

#Tentative support, since I have seen this user's good work at AIV and AFC. Awaiting answers to standard questions. android79 02:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. Neutral Almost meets all my requirements except he's relatively new to Wikipedia. Other than that I don't see a problem. Moe ε 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral meets but one condition of my stanards, so won't support, but looks good. NSLE (T+C) at 03:01 UTC (2006-03-04)
  3. Neutral Superb record for such a short period of time-- already has a barnstar. Clear, insightful thinking and communication. Helpful to others. Will be an excellent admin. My only reservation is the question of sustainablilty. User may be setting a burnout pace. Mikereichold 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Great potential, just give it a bit more time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Rob Church (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 02:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Meegs's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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, 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 know this isn't terribly helpful, but I'd really be willing to help-out wherever there's need. There's a backlog at WP:CP, so that might be a good place to start. I also have experience with speedy deletion, CFD, and AFD, so those are possibilities too. I am not a big vandal fighter — I mostly crawl up and down the edit history of vandals who cross my watchlist — but I would certainly make use of rollback and blocking powers where appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've created quite a number of short articles, but they're on such disparate topics that it's hard to cluster enough of them together to label as a single serious achievement. For a big, cohesive project that I'm proud of, I'd probably point to one of the big categorization efforts I've been a part of, such as the creation and population of Category:College football coaches and Category:National Football League players by team.
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 haven't really been a disputant in any serious conflicts. It's probably due to the uncontroversial topics I frequent, like American football, and my general non-adherence to WP:BOLD. Whenever I have encountered editors with ideas far from my own, I've always been able to work things out pretty quickly on talk pages. I have also stepped (or stumbled) into a few arguments between others. In those cases I've tried to remain neutral, pointed-out Wikipedia policy, and urged the parties not to take things personally. In the future, if I were involved in something where a consensus or outright agreement is not forthcoming, I would solicit the opinions of uninvolved Wikipedians or take advantage one of the community's resources listed at WP:DR.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.