Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/W.marsh

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] W.marsh

final (30/2/0) ending 4:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
W.marsh (talk · contribs) - W.marsh is a great guy that shows strong dedication to the project. I looked at his edits on Kate's tool, and there's nothing to complain about. W.marsh first joined the wiki as a registered user on July 5th, 2005 at 12:32 AM (UTC). I'm absolutely convinced that him being an admin would be beneficial to the wiki. Seriously, I'm convinced! :-) WikiFanatic 04:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. --W.marsh 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, pending accepting of the nomination. WikiFanatic 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support: Wow. All that cleanup...that requires some immense patience. Definitely worthy of adminship. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support: Dedicated editor, deeply involved and pleasant to work with. -- Znode 05:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Good editor --rogerd 05:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, great contributor. Keep on rollin'! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Proto t c 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Seen the user in AfD mostly, works on RC, NA. I would like to see You voting on AfDs, not only nominating. Overall this will be an excellent admin. feydey 12:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support support per kind words above.Gator (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Full support Excellent contributions + a credit to WP. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Wezzo (talk • contribs) , 14:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Excellent contributor, fine work at AfD. Xoloz 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support I wanted to nominate him. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support wholeheartedly. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Excellent nomination--FRS 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. King of All the Franks 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. If I tried to complain about this user I could not. Croat Canuck 06:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support - excellent user. PJM 13:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support - a very enthusiastic janitor; needs keys to the cleaning closet. jnothman talk 15:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support - looks like he will make a great admin. — Moe ε 16:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support - He's already been doing the cleanup a non-admin can do, and is exceptionally good about doing due diligence. He's got a level head, good judgement, and errs on the side of caution. All good qualities for an admin. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Rob Church Talk 03:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support a top bloke amongst top blokes. Works hard for the encyclopaedia, keeps a level head, learns from his mistakes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Good editor. --Kefalonia 13:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. I've taken a look at a few of your edits and it seems you really grind away at this project we like to call Wikipedia. Here's to hoping you don't snap and start blocking everyone on Wikipedia, eventually becoming so powerful as an admin that you out-block Jimmy Wales. Whoops, there goes my imagination again. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support I've had good experiences working with W.marsh resolving disputes before they became significant.The Literate Engineer 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support a good vandal fighter, and experienced too. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support --NaconKantari 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - a few bad run ins with this fellow. Not admin material. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps you could tell us where we could find these run-ins. WikiFanatic 19:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    This kind of oppose votes almost make me want to vote support. When, what, where? You can't just make unsupported(maybe it happened, but I see no prove given) allegations. This kind of things also make easy pile-on triggers.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Zordrac. freestylefrappe 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps you could tell us where we could find these run-ins. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • My only 'run in' (bad or otherwise) with Zordrac, that I know of, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astral music, where all that really happened was I asked him a question and he never answered. It seemed pretty harmless to me... does "admin material" involve never asking questions? It would be helpful to me (as a Wikipedian) if either of the voters would care to provide some sort of explanation... as I'm stumped here. --W.marsh 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that's one incident. Zordrac cited more than one; "a few bad run ins". WikiFanatic 03:04, 22 December 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 in dealing with vandals and helping with the backlog... I have RC patrolled extensively in the recent past, and I watch a lot of pages and tend to encounter quite a few vandals in either case, sometimes persistant and/or sneaky vandals on Sports-related pages. I also nominate a lot of pages for speedy deletion, so I would not be adding to the workloads of other admins as much, and I would help out with speedy deletes. I also would close AfDs other than consensus keeps, and help with the backlog there.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am probably most proud (so far) of my contributions so far improving orphan pages. This started because I was a bit worried about the number of unverified, unwikified, uncategorized, copyvio, etc. pages out there... so I decided to do my part to fix it.
I use Special:Lonelypages to identify pages in need of attention, and improve them. It only lists 1,000 per week. When I started, it never even got to the B's, now it almost gets to the D's. For example, there are now about 150 starting with A, compare to 1,000+ a few months ago. It's only 2 months of work, but I've improved a few thousand articles, doing everything from adding a stub to total cleanup to rewriting, and successfully dealt with many hoaxes and other problematic pages through AfD. It's nothing flashy, but I think I'm improving things with this work.


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 have dealt with the usual vandals and personal attack-making anons but I've never lost my cool. My only conflict with a serious editor was over a minor mistake I was making in adding certain items to Disambiguation page lists, and I took a bit of offense to his tone in correcting me, but I kept it polite and it didn't escalate to anything. I think that after that, I am better able to accept criticism and not take it personally. Other than that, I've had pretty good luck with assuming good faith and treating people politely, and that’s I plan to continue doing.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.