Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RobertG: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:19, 22 September 2005

RobertG

Vote here (10/0/0) ending 03:55 29 September 2005 (UTC)

RobertG (talk · contribs) – RobertG has been with us since April. I was impressed with his understanding of the way Wikipedia works when I welcomed him as a newbie and I continue to admire his good work. In addition to being a valuable contributor to the classical music articles (Witold Lutosławski, which he is largely responsible for, was recently featured), he is unfailingly courteous and considerate, and certainly trustworthy enough for the mop and bucket. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept, thank you, and I promise to do my best if promoted. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nominator. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems like a thoroughly decent bloke. Martin 08:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, hard worker. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Enjoy. - Darwinek 10:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent editor, contributer. Glad to welcome him into adminship. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very fine contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Seems very well suited to being an admin. Only slight concern is what the wikibreaks were about, but I suspect they were unrelated to Wikipedia and more related to RealLife(TM). Uses edit summaries in 87% of edits, average # of edits per day >10. A quality admin addition I think. --Durin 13:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Durin is correct about the wikibreaks: one was a summer holiday abroad, one was due to time pressures and long hours at work (not what I call a break at all, unfortunately :-). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like a thoroughly nice chap and ideal Wikipedian. Vizjim 15:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This should be no big deal.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Support the musicabal! --Michael Snow 17:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:RobertG-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 13:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. I enjoy RC patrol when I am not contributing to articles, and the rollback tool would help me do more. I would be willing to help with combating or repairing concerted attacks, such as the recent page-move vandalism episode. I also see other tasks and backlogs which I would be willing to help with, such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems; I would ease myself gently into these tasks, making sure I understood the consequences first.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. As Mindspillage kindly mentioned in her nomination, Witold Lutosławski was a tiny stub when I arrived, and I have expanded it and shepherded it though to a featured article - with lots of help. I have also completely rewritten Olivier Messiaen from a few paragraphs into a substantial article. No article is ever finished, however, and no article is one person's 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. No - no conflicts worth labelling as such. I always try and contribute civilly, and have encountered mainly civility in return; besides, I have observed that incivility is generally counter-productive. If I do find myself in a controversial area I tend to talk first and edit afterwards rather than the other way round. How will I deal with it in future? - I hope coolly and courteously.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===[[User:RobertG|RobertG]]===
 '''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RobertG|action=edit}} Vote here] '''
-'''(7/0/0) ending 03:55 [[29 September]] [[2005]] (UTC)'''
+'''(10/0/0) ending 03:55 [[29 September]] [[2005]] (UTC)'''
 {{User|RobertG}} – RobertG has been with us since April. I was impressed with his understanding of the way Wikipedia works when I welcomed him as a newbie and I continue to admire his good work. In addition to being a valuable contributor to the classical music articles ([[Witold Lutosławski]], which he is largely responsible for, was recently featured), he is unfailingly courteous and considerate, and certainly trustworthy enough for the mop and bucket. [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 05:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 #'''Support'''.  Seems like a thoroughly nice chap and ideal Wikipedian. [[User:Vizjim|Vizjim]] 15:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 # This should be no big deal.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''[[User:Journalist|<span style="color:darkblue">Journalist]] '''</sup>''' [[Special:Contributions/Journalist|<sup><span style="color:lime">C.]]'''/ '''[[User talk:Journalist|<sup><span style="color:lightseagreen"> Holla @ me!]]</sup></span></span></span></p>
+#Support the musicabal! --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 17:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 '''Oppose'''