Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smurrayinchester 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 25 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (51x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Smurrayinchester[edit]

Final (98/1/0) ending 10:00 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester (talk · contribs) – It has been my pleasure to work with Smurrayinchester in a number of Esperanza projects and discussions. He is very involved in the community, with notable contributions to the various Wikipedia refernce desks, the help desk, and RFA. He also has plenty of experience in the deletion process, which is obviously an important part of adminship. I was neutral in his previous request for adminship in January due to editcountitis, but I feel that he has since gained enough experience to be trusted with the mop and bucket. He has now accumulated more than 3300 edits, over 30% of which are in the main namespace. It is an honor to nominate him for adminship. --TantalumTelluride 22:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept - smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --TantalumTelluride 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support edits look solid.--MONGO 10:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support without reservation. (Hell, he helped reform my user page ;)) NSLE (T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-03-12)
  4. Support found him very helpful many a time - the situation he refers to in Q.3 doesn't qualify as a conflict, imo. It is more in the nature of a mis-understanding and as one of the people involved in the matter, I feel that his actions were forthright and aboveboard. --Gurubrahma 10:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support He re-decorated my user page for Pete's Sake! --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 11:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support (see my RfA criteria). Petros471 11:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support for exactly the same reasons as I supported last time. David | Talk 14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — FireFox • T [15:05, 12 March 2006]
  10. Support Prodego talk 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - The ideal Wikipedian - J.Steinbock (Talk)
  13. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (e) 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support like last time --rogerd 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, good user, it's time for his mop and bucket. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, solid. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support good all around. Deckiller 21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support My pleasure! A good user, who is not only active with the community but, whose interactions with the community have been civil and helpful. KnowledgeOfSelf 22:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support This vote goes against my personal standards but I think he would make a good admin. :-D Moe ε 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Robert 23:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - still a little light on the article-space edits, but good community-spirited Wikipedian. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Extreme "I thought you were promoted last time?" support - good luck, mate. --Celestianpower háblame 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support - I'd like to see more edits, but m:Editcountitis is a really bad reason not to support someone. Stifle 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Full Support like last time. Keep it up! Igor the Lion(Roar!) 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. youngamerican (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support -- Right for the job. John Reid 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support — Great credentials. Can't believe I hadn't voted till now. deeptrivia (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. great job. pschemp | talk 05:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Excellent record. — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 06:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Good work at the Reference desk. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support GizzaChat © 06:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. On another note, its too bad the DfA didn't take off. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Terence Ong 07:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Khoikhoi 08:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - good contributions to Fawlty Towers among others obviate slightly low mainspace edit count. ProhibitOnions 12:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: --Bhadani 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support (of course!) haz (user talk)e 13:38, 13 March 2006
  43. Support. I've seen a lot of this work and I've never failed to be impressed. Thryduulf 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- Mihai -talk 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Oh yes - great candidate. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support again as per vote in 1st nom. Tim (meep) 18:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, seems great to me, but what do I know. JaredW! 20:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Extremely strong support. Will make a great administrator, without doubt. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. I have been awake for an extraordinary amount of time, yet I feel the cumpunction, um, cumpulsion, uh, somthingorother to support Smurraysomethingorother. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - dharmabum 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support—Quarl (talk) 2006-03-14 11:04Z
  56. Support -- Natalya 12:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, as per last time, which really doesn't seem like a long time ago. Proto||type 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I've seen Smurrayinchester around, and he's a really good editor. JIP | Talk 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support looks good.Gator (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, and would've supported two months ago had I looked. Apologies. Hiding talk 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Will be a great admin. --Fang Aili 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support this excellent editor. Staxringold 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Smurrayinchester has been helping me out at the Tip of the day project, and has been very supportive, providing assistance and encouragement. I've found this editor a pleasure to work with. Definitely admin material. --Go for it! 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Yamaguchi先生 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support.--Jusjih 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Good luck! --Mmeinhart 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. JoshuaZ 05:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I'm not compelled to give a reason for supporting your RFA. So nyah. >:-( --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, of course. Thought he was one. —Nightstallion (?) 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Conscious 16:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support will be a fine addition to the admin base. --Alf melmac 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Cliché support, is familiar with Wikipedia policies & procedures and shows good common sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, just like nearly everybody else. -Colin Kimbrell 21:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Everything looks good here. I would like to see this month end up near February's edit totals to prove that this soon-to-be-admin didn't experience a wikiburnout. --ZsinjTalk 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support after edit conflict. Silensor 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, per Go for it!. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Bandwagon Support    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Leidiot 00:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Joining the bandwagon for a nice fellow. Xoloz 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Mmounties (Talk) 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Yes please. —Encephalon 11:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Ugur Basak 11:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, without question. --Elkman - (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support – Gurch 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - Warofdreams talk 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support -per nom. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support ah yes, come across Smurrayinchester before, very good editor Robdurbar 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support -- DS1953 talk 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support --Latinus 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per reasons in the nom. --Jay(Reply) 00:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 05:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. It took me a really long time to scroll down to here... --Rory096 07:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a long list of votes for a good reason, Rory. :D Staxringold 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another duplicate.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. support this person to be administrator Yuckfoo 23:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support good editor - should make a fine admin. Johntex\talk 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - I've seen him do good work quite a lot. --Ixfd64 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Good work in Wikipedia namespace, will be a fine admin. Nearly got to be #100 :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 100!! mmeinhart 13:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. OpposePrasi90 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - User has been blocked multiple times, for a variety of offences, including vandalism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think that can be considered relevant. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 @ 00:59 (UTC)
    It can. It's disruptive (originally his post read "I'm not compelled to give a reason for opposing your RFA" or something along those lines), and it's not the first RFA he's done this to, without a reason. NSLE (T+C) at 01:05 UTC (2006-03-15)
    Come on people, its illogical (attack on person) to overlook someone's vote because he is known for vandalism. His vote should be considered valid. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to disqualify a vote is not the only reason to point out a user's history, and I didn't see any attempt by anyone here to actually have the vote disqualified. NoSeptember talk 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it really matter whether this vote counts? Unless smurray does something incredibly horrifying within the next few days, this nomination will undoubtedly succeed. --TantalumTelluride 04:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Journalist on this one. Might as well let his vote count. After all, even those blocked for vandalism still have some 'suffrage'. By the way, the exact quote was "It is not mandatory for me to give my reasons for opposing your RfA". smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it doesn't matter; but, vote disqualification is for the b'crat to decide, at his/her discretion. Xoloz 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please allow us bureaucrats to determine if a consensus has been reached. :) We're not really redundant. ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Per my own standards for voting. But I'm leaning towards support. Moe ε 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Support. :-D Moe ε 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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. Closure of some the deletion debates (not necessarily AFD but some of the less used such as MFD and RFD), rollback and protected edit requests (long backlog there), and possibly helping with protected 'Main Page' templates (In the news, On this day, Did you know? etc).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'd say that I'm most pleased with my work to replace the ugly blue "preformatted" text in articles with tables or <code> tags as appropriate (eg [1]), some of my templates (such as those used in WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events), my contributions to Barnstar (such as the Template barnstar), Tip of the Day & similar organisations and also some of the articles I have created/expanded greatly (Puddle, BBC Weather, Chester Racecourse).
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 was in a conflict at Wikipedia talk:Barnstars as to whether the Scouting Barnstar should be an offical Barnstar or a PUA (I supported PUA status). In the end however, I had to go on holiday and when I got back, the dispute had been resolved. In future, I think the best approach is, except for in cases of blatant vandalism or POV pushing, to find some middle ground compromise (in the case of the barnstar, putting in a prominent location under "WikiProject Barnstars".
4. In just a paragraph, how has your involvement in Esperanza helped with the end goal of Wikipedia? --Cyde Weys 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. I've helped out with quite a few of the programs run by Esperanza, such as the user page award, which has in turn I hope helped to reduce stress levels with other editors and provided users with a break from editting for a while, which can only be a good thing in the long run.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Smurrayinchester_2&oldid=1146616889"