Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sherool

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

Sherool

Final (27/4/0) ended 02:32 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Sherool (talk · contribs) – Sherool has been with us on Wikipedia since May 2005. He has made 3708 edits, 1606 (43%) of which are in the article namespace. He also has 801 deleted edits, most of which are adding speedy tags and other maintainance tasks. According to his user page, most of his tasks are "janitorial" and I notice he's been doing a lot of help putting speedy tags to enforce the new image speedy criteria. This focus, I think, would make him a very productive administrator. Coffee 15:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support we need more admins doing what he's already demonstrated he wants to do. Would be good admin.Gator(talk) 19:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support —thames 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support freestylefrappe 22:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Grutness...wha? 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support A quick check in the contribution log turns up nothing troubling and shows fine use of edit summaries. See no reason to deny tools that will make the user even more effective. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Does good work.--
   Black 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Support Good editor --Rogerd 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support only first saw him yesterday, and I liked what I saw. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, of course. Coffee 02:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, looks like a good user. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support MONGO 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Delete, self-admitted nn candidate. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 07:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support giving him the mop would only make his work easier. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. --JAranda | watz sup 21:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support because the voices in my head tell me to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 23:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Although the oppose votes below have raised valid points, I feel that people often loose touch of the fact that adminship should be "no big deal". I see only reasons to support and none to oppose. Gblaz 03:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. As previously stated in Psy Guy's RfA, not all Wikipedians are going to be editors or contributers to articles. Just as a research center needs both the scientists who do the research and the cleaning crew who makes sure that the place looks nice, Wikipedia needs Admins to do article work and Admins to keep things nice and shiny. This user falls under the category of the latter (and there was no offense intended with my remarks. LOL) --Martin Osterman 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Edits and their distribution have "janitor" written all over them. Perfect example of someone who would save time and save everyone else time if given the tools. Marskell 12:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Enjoyment derived from janitorial tasks and commitment enough to already do so. Thats a reason to support if I ever saw one. -- The Minister of War^(Peace) 16:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. We can always use more janitors, especially of such a high quality. the wub "?!" 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Good chap, quietly getting on with essential tasks for which administrator powers would be useful.[reply]
27. Support good cleaner-upper. Dlyons493 Talk 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I must oppose based on response to question 2. User states not much actual editing, I personally feel this is a major point of contention, admins are supposed to lead by example... if all we do is cleanup work this encyclopedia doesnt really go anywhere. You should be familiar with all aspects of wikipedia to be a good admin, that includes FAC as well as AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 09:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. I'm concerned about Sherool having only 85 posts to article talk pages in six months. Admins need more community involvement than that. I'll support in a couple of months time if he does something about that, and as Alkivar said, makes more substantive contributions to articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Private Butcher 00:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Alk and Slim. I note that most of the support-votes are of the regular "sure, why not" kind, and do not address these issues. Radiant_>|< 10:37, 16 November 2005 (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. Well I've been pecking away at speedyable images (no source, no licence, orphanded etc) so I'll keep doing that. Also help carrying out delete sentences from the various deletion pages most likely and lend a hand at

WP:RM and that kind of things. There are other maintainance tasks I'll do too, but they don't require admin powers. --Sherool (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

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

A. I have not contributed a whole lot of original text rely (mostly minor edits, adding a category here, sorting a stub template there, a little wikifying and such), aside from some "fancruft" Brynjar Meling is the only "big" contribution I can think of article wise. I'm fairly pleased by the work I did on splitting the overpopulated {{writer-stub}}, but others like Caerwine deserve the most credit. I only created two of the sub stubs and sorted maybe a couple of hundred stubs altogether. I'm also pleased to have contributed some free images to commons to replace copyrighted ones, or fulfill image requests, even if they are not exactly featured image candidates (hard to get lighting good when doing "macro" photography, at least with the camera I have access to). --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Not rely. I generaly try my best to avoid conflicts. Someone vandalised my userpage once when I listed his joke article for deletion, and recently I've goten a couple of "un-diplomatic" comments thrown in my general directon on

WP:TFD, but that kind of things don't rely bother me too much. I think this is the closest to a edit war I've been in so far. I typicaly try to work disagreements out on the relevant talk page(s), and do my best not to post if the blood is boiling. --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]