Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rogerd 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick123 (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 6 January 2006 (→[[User:Rogerd|Rogerd]]: Update vote tally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rogerd

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rogerd (2nd)|action=edit}} Vote here] (44/1/0) ending 04:30 12 January, 2006 (UTC)

Rogerd (talk · contribs) – This is Rogerds' second nomination and it has been more than 3 months since his first self nom failed primarily due to lack of project space contributions. Now he has almost 6,000 edits and 1,500 of them have been to project space. Rogerd has been working hard on disambiguations and is one of the most polite and courteous editors I have come across. Rogerd has been active in every namespace and I trust he will be an excellent Admin.--MONGO 02:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly accept, and thank MONGO for the nom. --rogerd 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Everything looks A-okay to me!--MONGO 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. -- Phædriel 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per impeccable nom. BDAbramson T 04:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as above; excellent candidate. Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Supported after reviewing contributions. Pretty much the ideal admin. silsor 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Everything looks good. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. He seems to be a fine editor. Let him be promoted. -- Eddie 05:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I see this user around all the time, we can trust him with the admin tools. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support as above. Does a lot of stuff. Croat Canuck 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Will make a great administrator. Neutralitytalk 05:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Snakes 06:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Administratorfy!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Very good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. While I personally haven't ever had any experience with the user, judging by his edits he seems to be well rounded. Looking at his talk page, he seems to be well respected and often people ask for his advice or opinion. Having 100% edit summary usage also always looks good in my book. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Izehar 10:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Positive user. - Darwinek 11:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Terence Ong Talk 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Easy Support great edit history, good editor.Gator (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support very good user who does good work.--Alhutch 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. -- DS1953 talk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Polite and does good work, will make a great janitor. --W.marsh 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Tally Up! Its not big deal! Even if it was I would still vote +ve. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. The concerns raised in the first RfA have been addressed, and I feel this user would make a great sysop. — TheKMantalk 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, good credentials, no reason not to. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, looks and sounds pretty good. Good answer to question three. Babajobu 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Good editor. -- Szvest 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  30. Support. Thunderbrand 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. King of All the Franks 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. KHM03 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. The more prolific article authors are the people who deserve adminship. David | Talk 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, would make a good admin -- Francs2000 01:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, seems like excellent admin material to me. CharonX 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. jnothman talk 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Looks good. Olorin28 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support All the i's looked crossed and t's dotted. --Jay (Reply) 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Everything looks in order here. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: yes. --Bhadani 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support; indeed valid contributor and nice guy. Plus MONGO's thoughts on adminship are always right on the money as far as I am concerned. -MegamanZero|Talk 08:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: He would make a great admin, and is almost a namesake - what a laugh. Roger Dangerfields 15:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Sceptre (Talk) 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose: I'm sorry to be the lone voice of opposition, here, but I've recently decided I'd like to ask admin candidates to have twelve months of editing history before being accepted. Also, since I do not know the candidate, I don't have enough information to support. I need to personally know that a candidate has demonstrated a commitment to NPOV and consensus before supporting. I've added a question about this below, and if the answer is shows enough overwhelming support for these principles, I may consider changing this to a Neutral or Support. Nothing personal, I'm just trying to prompt us all to think about raising our own standards for this process. Given the number of votes you've received at this point, it seems likely you will be promoted despite my vote here. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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. The articles for deletion seems to get backlogged a lot, I think I can be of some help there, as well as IfD, CfD and other deletions. Also copyright problems and requested moves. If I am made an admin, I will check on the administrators' noticeboard often to try to help where needed. I also believe that admins should be very careful dealing with controversies in articles that he/she has done a lot of editing, and in some cases should get other admins involved. I already do a lot of vandal patrolling, and admin rights will help with that.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. National Museum of the United States Air Force as well as several other articles related to aircraft (both civilian and military) like Taylorcraft Aircraft, North American BT-9 and Sikorsky R-4. I am also interested in early US history and WW II. I contributed a lot to an article about a little known incident in the American Revolutionary War, known as the Newburgh Conspiracy, as well as other articles about the period.
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. Only some minor incidents. No real stress. An anonymous editor kept trying to re-insert unsubstantiated claims in the Daryn Kagan article. After trying to discuss this on the article talk page (they kept changing IP, so I couldn't use the user talk page), I put in a request in WP:RFPP. I feel that the best way to handle things like that are to discuss them calmly, and then try to compromise. And remember that you aren't going to win every disagreement. You should only revert or resort to heavier handed means if the other party is violating established WP rules.
4. Please provide diffs to edits you have made which demonstrate your commitment to Wikipedia's core principles of consensus and NPOV. Do you believe that the NPOV policy will eventually result in a high-quality encyclopedia? Do you believe that consensus among Wikipedians is the proper way to produce articles and create and administer policy? Please demonstrate with diffs. Are there any cases where consensus has gone against the way you think things should have been? How did you handle it? Diffs representing these cases would also be helpful. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rogerd_2&oldid=34147476"