Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timrollpickering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Timrollpickering

final (21/0/1) ending 15:56 25 February 2005 (UTC)

User since November, 2003. 6200 edits or so. Generally reliable and responsible. john k 15:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept the nomination - thank you for proposing me. Timrollpickering 22:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pasted from User talk:Timrollpickering, my response to his request that I delete a page for him to enable a move:
Moved. would you like me to nominate you for adminship? john k 01:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That would be kind - yes thank you. Timrollpickering 15:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. john k 16:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Contribs and talk pages look OK to me. *grumbles about sparse use of edit summaries* CryptoDerk 16:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Certainly. Rje 20:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Good user, also the author of the 400,000th article on the english Wiki -- Chris 73 Talk 00:19, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ryan! | Talk 01:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Pcb21| Pete 14:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Seems fine to me. Slowking Man 04:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Mackensen (talk) 06:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. Andre (talk) 03:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Carrp | Talk 04:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. Jordi·✆ 07:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. ugen64 07:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. Warofdreams 11:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. Jiang 13:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  15. Michael Snow 23:34, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  16. Based on the overwhelming support, I support as well "Antonio Hardballs Martin" User talk:AntonioMartin $:36, 23 Feb 2005 (MST)
  17. Okay. JuntungWu 12:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  18. Darwinek 21:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  19. —Lowellian (talk) 01:27, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  20. THWAAA. A very constructive editor who has contributed some excellent articles. Dbiv 16:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support I don't really think that sparsely using edit summaries should keep anyone from being an admin, especially such a strong editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Needs to give more edit summaries.Lst27 (talk) 00:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'll very likely vote to support, but I would like to see the nomination accepted and the questions answered first. Carrp | Talk 17:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    He accepted to me prior to the negotiation on his talk page, as I note above. I've just posted a further note telling him that I actually nominated him. john k 19:08, 19 Feb 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. Like other candidates I aim to help with the general problems of reverting vandalism, providing protection and dealing with difficult IP addresses. I'd also aim to specifically help in the area of naming conventions in helping ensure articles conform to them and, where necessary, perform the admins required to ensure compliance.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I guess that Neville Chamberlain is probably the long article I'm pleased with the most - there's a lot more information about Chamberlain's entire career rather than the usual overheavy focus on his European policy. Of the shorter articles George Canning is one I feel works better now than before. I've also been happy to get stub pages up for a lot of inter-war British politicians, making a better flow for the navi boxes.
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. The main editing conflicts I've had was a while ago and revolved around the list of leaders of the Conservative Party (UK) and exactly who if anyone was "Leader of the [overall] party" - we resolved that harmoniusly by switching the format and copying the one for the Liberal Party (UK). Otherwise my main irritation is when people start changing the placement of peers in categories on the spurious argument "we list people by names not positions" when most are known by their title which is part of the name. I've reverted a few here (and others have done the same) and will do so again when it leads to a strange category placing.