Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cuchullain

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Cuchullain[edit]

Final (61/1/1); Ended 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain (talk · contribs) - Cuchullain started editing here in February 2005 and has managed to amass over 15,000 edits. He is a prolific article contributor and his interactions with other editors have been civil and reasonable. He has shown good judgement here and I think he will use the tools responsibly. Cuchullain is exactly the type of person we need to have a mop and bucket around here and so I am happy to nominate him for adminship.Isotope23 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept, and graciously thank Isotope23 for his nomination.--Cúchullain t/c 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I want to help clear up the backlogs; especially at requested moves. I think the page move process is critical to keeping our articles internally organized and the content styled properly. I also plan on helping with speedy deletions and proposed deletions, and in taking care of the image deletion backlogs. Above all, I want to use the admin tools to the end of working on, maintaining, and improving articles, especially moving pages and merging histories, and keeping track of Special:Unwatchedpages.--Cúchullain t/c 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm probably most pleased with how Prester John has turned out. It's an article I've been working on essentially since I started at Wikipedia in 2005, and it's currently listed as a good article. I'm also proud of my work on several of our Medieval and Arthurian articles; I have some of them listed on my user page. As for other contributions, I've done some categorization work I'm pretty happy with, for instance Category:Saints by country and its subcats.--Cúchullain t/c 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The only conflict I've been involved with in recent memory was at Mi'kmaq language. It has been resolved. It got fairly heated, but I think I kept my cool. I tried to reiterate that our verifiability policy isn't negotiable, and in the end satisfactory results were achieved. Currently a MedCab case has started to deal with related, but larger, issues at the page. I try not to let this kind of thing get to me. Creating an accurate, verifiable encyclopedia trumps being mad over what someone said on the internet.--Cúchullain t/c 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Support as Nominator.--Isotope23 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A model editor. A Train take the 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good answer to Q1. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks like a fine candidate for adminship, balance looks fine to me and questions are fine. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Geo. 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support looks superb.-- danntm T C 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Addhoc 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support admins needed, seems trustworthy. - Anas Talk? 19:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Why not? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support because this editor does a great job. Simple. The Rambling Man 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support per above and Anthony, Cbrown1023 talk 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He has shown consistent enthusiasm for the project and contributed immensely to several major encyclopedic fields. Can personally vouch for his trustworthiness. TheLateDentarthurdent 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, seems solid. Trebor 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Fine all-round contributor, sound nomination, and good answers. No problems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Excellent contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Definitely admin material. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Enthusiastic support. I love the answer to Q1, because it would be great to get more eyes and administrator keyboards over at WP:RM. Dekimasuが... 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I see no problems with this application. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Suppport, RM is always logjammed, and anyone sensible willing to help out with that will be a valuable addition. Proto::► 10:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support PeaceNT 10:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Terence Ong 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good editor with no inappropriate behavior - so, yeah, why not. Nice work on that Prester John article, by the way. Coemgenus 14:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Enthusiastic Support - damn, he's so good I should have nominated him myself :-)--Aldux 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good editor when I've come across him Johnbod 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Well, I'd like to see more wikispace edits oh who cares of course I support.--Wizardman 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. YechielMan 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Cuchullain is a great editor, easy to approach and engage in discussions, and certainly has the best interests of the project at heart. gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I'd like to see you start leaving warnings after reverting vandalism in the future, but otherwise looks good enough. VegaDark 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support For obvious reasons stated above. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - per nom. --Soman 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support excellent editor with great contributions who I am sure will make an excellent Sysop.--Looper5920 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. -- Shyam (T/C) 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support You will make a fine admin. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 02:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Solid contributor with generally balanced approach. Pigmantalk 08:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support the lousy drunken bastard singing "Billy in the Bowl". ~ trialsanderrors 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support, candidate looks good, but lack of experience dealing with disputes (per Anthony) knocks down the strength of this support vote. However, I'm still going to support because your record looks great otherwise. --Coredesat 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Fine Wikipedian. - Darwinek 14:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Rettetast
  44. Support - good candidate. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Seems good. I balked at the short answers at first, but they are just concise and said in a few words would have taken me many more. Civil, demonstrated need of the tools, little risk in giving the mop. IronGargoyle 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Jaranda wat's sup 07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Most RC patrol is just leaving warnings on user talk pages. I don't think doing that really shows you are interacting with a person. Anyway, Cuchullain has shown an understanding of policy, and is a prolific editor at Wikipedia. He may not have the user talk edits, but he compensates that with discussion at article talk pages. Nishkid64 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support in the name of the Round Table. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I've only seen positive interactions and contributions from this candidate, and looking around some more I'm readily convinced they can find their way around wiki policy and procedures without any trouble.--cjllw | TALK 08:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Good edits, though I'd like to see more consistent usage of edit summaries. I'm also a bit concerned about time available, considering that quantity of edits seems to have been decreasing over the last few months. But that's no reason to oppose -- I think Cuchullain will make good use of the tools.  :) --Elonka 04:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Solid contributor. We've worked on some of the same articles and, when I see his name pop up on my watchlist, I know things are probably under control on that article and I won't need to rush in to put out any fires. This is all-too-rare and very appreciated. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support yet another good user. James086Talk 08:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good editor, Garion96 (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support This user has a good record and I think he/she will make a good admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Good track record. riana_dzasta 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I delt with this guy a while ago and he kept his cool even when I didn't. He was helpful in Shining Path, and even got involved in the mediation of it desipite not being particularly interested in the subject (at least I don't think he was). Of course at this point, he doesn't really need my support anyway. --Descendall 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support good user.--Jersey Devil 01:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Good luck I have little doubt that you'll get access today. BuickCenturyDriver 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Good candidate Corpx 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

  1. Opppose for use of fair use images outside article namespace. An admin should know this indisputable part of the fair use policy. See [1] and [2]. --MECU≈talk 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first dif the image he added isn't fair use, and the second dif was from a year ago, Jaranda wat's sup 07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - although there is good participation in AfD, I can't actually find any participation in the other types of deletion debates: TfD, MfD, etc.. Participation in vandalism patrol is not substantial enough to demonstrate a real need for the mop and bucket. Low edits in the "User talk:-" space seems to me that the user doesn't really interact as much as is needed for an sysop. I'm not really picking up any disputes the user has had brought to his front door, which raises the question over whether or not he would be able to handle the day-to-day trolling that all active sysops have to deal with. Definitely too good a Wikipedian to oppose - especially with his commendable mainspace participation - but there seems to be no need for those shiny extra buttons at this time. Yours, Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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/Cuchullain&oldid=1088716223"