Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NoSeptember

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

NoSeptember

edit

final (45/2/1) ending 01:23 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember (talk · contribs) – NoSeptember has been popping up on my watchlist for quite some time, making good contributions to law-related articles of all stripes and reverting vandalism to the same. He has accumulated over 2,500 edits and his consistant participation in various project pages leaves me with no doubt that he will use admin powers wisely, and to the benefit of this project. BD2412 T 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and thank BDA and the others who have encouraged me. NoSeptember talk 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 01:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Encouraging answers to questions, and certainly a great edit history. I'll look forward to seeing him around as an admin. Ashibaka tock 02:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support -- I have been waiting for this nomination to happen... BD2412, what took you so long to nominate him? ;) NoSeptember pops up on my watchlist rather often as well, and his contributions are sensible and thoughtful. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, mais bien sur, as nominator. BD2412 T 02:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support good contributor, I trust the nom. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support good answers to questions and BD2412 is a very trustworthy nominator. Please use edit summaries more often.--Alhutch 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support with no reservations.--MONGO 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Absolutely support. Good judgment and wonderful attitude. And, as per GregAsche: "god contributor" :) Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: --Bhadani 05:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support with no reservations. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, I've seen him around doing good things. - Phædriel ♥ tell me 10:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Terence Ong 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. King of All the Franks 12:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Dragons flight 17:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support some great contributions to wikipedia main space and wikipedia name space --TimPope 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No reason not to. —BorgHunter alt (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Looks good. -ZeroTalk 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support good editor --rogerd 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nomination. --TantalumTelluride 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Cliched, but I thought he already was one. -- Pakaran 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Fine editor, and the nominator is a great guy. So of course I'll support. Banes 06:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support feydey 08:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong September Support , hic, January support, especially for his answer to Q.1. --Gurubrahma 16:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, I liked the answers to my question. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. An amazing editor doing amazing work with legal and judicial articles.--Alabamaboy 17:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Izehar 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, a cursory scan shows him to be a courteous and knowledgeable user, and courteous and knowledgeable users have a tendency to become courteous and knowledgeable admins (usually). I also like his answers to the questions, and trust my fellow supporters (up ^ thataway). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Intelligent, experienced, responsible and good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Astrotrain 12:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Best of luck. -Colin Kimbrell 14:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 14:42Z
  36. Support. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs   15:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I trust any nomination made by BD2412 to be a worthwhile candidate. Hall Monitor 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — Moe ε 02:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Thryduulf 14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per good edits and the answers to questions especially question number 1.--Dakota ~ ε 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Seems like a good idea--Piedras grandes 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support good knowledge of law and Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 01:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -Greg Asche (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see that I voted twice... -Greg Asche (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support good as an editor, civil, good answers to questions. Like others, he pops up on my Watchlist, often with sensible, good-faith edits. Would be an excellent admin, who would be very very unlikely to abuse his powers. Batmanand 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --tomf688{talk} 02:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, as I've seen him all over the place, and has struck me to have good knowledge of policy. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a duplicate support vote :-) (see # 33) NoSeptember talk 11:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose No evidence of helping new users, or active conversation skills. --Masssiveego 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose the actions of a nominator reflect the actions of the nominee - specifically BD2412's recent rampant harassment of Masssiveego. freestylefrappe 14:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I vaguely remember this editor being impolite at times, but maybe I am thinking of some else or he has changed. Not sure, so Neutral.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note: I went through his edit history and couldn't find any evidence of this editor being anything but polite.--Alabamaboy 17:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I'll start by continuing to work on the projects I have been doing and expand into the new areas as they come up. I monitor wiki policy and deletions often. I handle vandalism as I see it, but focus more on encyclopedia content than doing RC patrol. CSD and CFD are two areas I plan to focus on somewhat if I have the ability to close. My #1 focus will be: helping with requests of non-admins. I think helping the editor without the wiki expertise is one of the best roles for an admin to play - my experience has been that some new editors have made some great intelligent contributions to the analytical articles I deal with, and I'd hate to lose them due to frustration. I've had some success at encouraging new editors to continue useful contributions by watching them closely.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I like creating pages that help make legal and political history and the political processes understandable, examples are Federal judicial appointment history and Direct descent from William I. I've created judicial biography articles and am working on improving and standardizing a lot of political/legal biographies. Wikipedia has been a great place to create some good analytical articles about legal and political structures in the US and elsewhere. The improvement of the articles, categories and templates to enhance navigation has been an objective of mine in this area. I am also working on 19th century political history articles (an area that is currently quite thin).
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 had very few issues in the edit conflict area, I have been able to work out the wording that is satisfactory to the involved editors. Of course, with history articles, facts can be verified and the articles kept accurate. I have found that a bit of discussion on the user or article talk pages has always been successful. Maybe I have just been fortunate, but I don't stress out easily and am always polite.
4. What do you have against the month of September?
A. I have nothing against September, please see the mention of the month in the introductory paragraph of my user page. On the other hand, I could adopt this as my theme song ;-)
5. Are you familiar with WP:AN and WP:AN/I? Have you participated in those discussions in the past and do you plan to in the future?
A. I read AN and especially AN/I all the time. This would be first place I'd discuss any decisions I made that I felt might be controversial or that the community needed to be informed about. I haven't posted much there, in part because I am not in a position to do much about incidents, but these pages often have great links to the current policy discussions.
6. What is your view of the use of Userboxes on User pages? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. We have a deletion process that is working. The attack templates should be deleted through the process and the community should decide where the line is. I already see a consensus growing from the continued reviews. Nothing stops a user from adding their opinions to their user page without using user boxes, and the non-controversial user boxes are just fine.
7. What is your view of the use of Fair Use images on User pages? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Wikipedia has an obligation to comply with copyright law, a policy to do so and even go a bit further to cover ourselves in the grey area of the law is totally appropriate.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NoSeptember&oldid=1089039192"