Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TimPope

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.

TimPope[edit]

final (39/1/0) ending 12:00 3 January 2006 (UTC)

TimPope (talk · contribs) – I spend a lot of time on wikipedia and think it's great. I have been editing furiously since March 2005 in which time I have made about 8000 edits. I would like to be an admin and help out more with vandalism roll-back and other housekeeping. TimPope 11:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Self-nomination accepted --TimPope 11:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Positive contributor, I can't see a single reason to oppose. Martin 12:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Dan100 (Talk) 12:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. King of All the Franks 13:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, blindfolded and with both hands tied behind my back. BD2412 T 13:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. KHM03 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, some userful edits made, especially to stuff related to Doctor Who. --Thorpe | talk 14:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. FireFox 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support good editor.Gator (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Should make a good admin. --GraemeL (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sockpuppet 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --Terence Ong Talk 17:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Will make an excellent addition. -- Jbamb 19:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I see no reason to oppose.--MONGO 20:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support over 8,000 edits and people still question a user's familiarity with Wikipedia...freestylefrappe 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. After 8,000 edits you have to know what's going on at Wikipedia, and after this amount of time they aren't going to quit at the drop of a hat.--ViolinGirl♪ 00:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support Seems to be no reason to deny. Actually, this guy is positively brilliant. --Chazz88 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support. I was going to nominate him myself!--Sean|Black 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. User has more than enough experience with Wikiprocess. -- SoothingR 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Phaedriel 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support-- Bonaparte talk 14:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Good editor, good egg. Hamster Sandwich 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. He's clearly an excellent editor, and User:Sean Black vouches for his trustworthiness. If he reckons he's personally ready for adminship, then let him have it. It's not a big deal. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support his name regularly appears on my watchlist, and makes a lot of valuable edits. The JPS 20:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Good contributor. I believe that with his level of edits that he has to have enough familiarity with WikiProcess to use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 talk 04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μみゅー 09:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. El_C 12:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Fine, level-headed editor. Xoloz 16:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: I think we require editors and administrators with different "flair" and "talents". All dedicated users should be elavated to administrator's position: this will make the community more vibrant. --Bhadani 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. εいぷしろんγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Pile-on Support. I have seen him around. Pilatus 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I know it's cliche to say so, but I was sure he already was an admin.... – Seancdaug 09:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. See no reason for concerns about admin tool abuse. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per addressing of issues below. --Wgfinley 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, thought that he was one already. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Looks good. --Kefalonia 15:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, for lack of familiarity with WikiProcess - very little contribs to Wikispace except for AFD voting and WikiProject:Doctor Who. In my opinion, admin candidates need a bit more experience than that. Radiant_>|< 16:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He has over 8,000 edits...How much more experience does he need? freestylefrappe 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has plenty of experience writing articles. But one doesn't need to be an admin to write articles. He has little experience with policy and process, hence my objection. Radiant_>|< 23:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Tim has participated in other *fD discussions, as well as numerous discussions of policy as it relates to WikiProjects. he certainly understands policy, and is always engaging and active when discussion comes up. Therefore, I see no reason to oppose on these grounds. I totally understand your vote, but in this case I think "experience with policy and process" exists, just not where you may expect it. --Sean|Black 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral Went back and forth on this as I noticed a boatload of good work, I think there's nothing wrong with editing primarily on one particular topic. The problem I had was with images. I noted you told one user they should tag their image so that we would "know if it's legal" which is commendable [1]. But then, on many instances, in fact every instance I found where you added an image you pulled something from another website and slapped "fair use" on it [2] [3] [4] [5], usually with little if any explanation which shows a level of not understanding legitimate fair use claims. I think there's serious issues with all of these images and whether they constitute fair use (I'm going to go back and fix the tag on one that I believe will fix that one) but I'm concerned about the attitude, "I need a picture, I'll grab it off this website, maybe crop it a bit and call it fair use." Maybe some thoughts on this would persuade me to support. --Wgfinley 03:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I shall try to be more careful on this issue in future. --TimPope 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I'm switching to support. --Wgfinley 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.

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. Primarily vandalism roll-back. This is something I do regularly, but would like the admin's button so that it is less time consuming and that I can do more. I had to take some pages off my watchlist as I couldn't cope with all of them, but I still have some popular vandalism targets like Supreme court. Having the admin's button will allow me to have a large watchlist without losing my sanity. I also would also get involved in other backlogs of which I have had experience such as Articles, Categories, Images for deletion and copyright violation cleanup.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who and the newish Wikipedia:WikiProject International law, and many of my edits are in those areas. If I had to choose a couple which I am particularly pleased, I would say Letter Rogatory and Bod (series), just because I like them rather than they are particularly well written.
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 am not easily stressed out, but obviously everyone has some conflicts. I try to sort small problems out on talk and user talk pages first, but I have also used Wikipedia:Requests for comments as a mediation tool, which I feel has been succesful.
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/TimPope&oldid=1080981395"