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

Alasdair[edit]

Final (48/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 11:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair (talk · contribs) - I offered to nominate Alasdair for adminship just over a month ago having seen him doing good work around the place. He asked to wait a while to build experience and to focus on matters in real life but is now ready to take the plunge. Alasdair has been a Wikipedian since August 2005 and particularly active since April of this year. For those interested in the numbers he has just over 6000 contribs, over half of which are in the mainspace. Alasdair is an accomplished content writer, having worked on bringing The Bus Uncle , Kung Fu Hustle and Jackie Chan to featured status. He is a member of WikiProject Films.

Alasdair has also amassed good experience of the polices and process relevant to adminship. He is a competent vandal fighter and I find him to be a reliable reporter at WP:AIV, where he has made 128 reports. He participates intelligently in deletion discussions, where he clearly continues to follow the debate after he has commented and returns to clarify or amend his position as it progresses. His deleted edits show correct application of the speedy deletion criteria. In brief, I think Alasdair is a well-rounded contributor who has sufficient policy experience to make a good administrator. WjBscribe 08:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I now accept. Thanks.--Alasdair 10:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I tend to assist Wikipedia in 4 different areas. First, I'd like to answer to reports in WP:AIV, and block repeat vandals (and vandal only accounts). Secondly, I'd like to delete articles per the outcomes of WP:AFD, when there is a consensus to delete. Thirdly, I'd help clear the backlogs of CAT:CSD, since backlogs occur all the time, when I tag those articles. Finally, when it comes to reverting vandalism, I'd be happy to use the rollback tool, since a large number of vandals these days make consecutive edits to the articles, which are rather tedious to revert.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of my article writing, especially the three articles I improved to featured status: The Bus Uncle, Kung Fu Hustle and Jackie Chan. I am especially surprised when Raul654 decided to put up The Bus Uncle to be "Today's featured article" on 7 September, 2007, and that made me even more satisfied, since that article's had a rollercoaster ride in its article history. As of now, I'm nominating Rob-B-Hood for FA status, and has joined WikiProject Food and Drink as well.
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: I've had a number of conflicts with other editors, but none of which have escalated too much. I'll admit that I wasn't very good at resolving disputes early on, but I eventually learnt to stay polite, and maintain a calm but firm demeanor (and sometimes ask for outside opinion). That helped defuse a lot of tense situations. When it comes to the most stressful user, I'd say User:DaliusButkus, I've had 2 disputes over Jackie Chan. The first was when I started to reformat the article, and got reverted several times because I was "editing too fast". The matter was resolved when I asked for assistance at the Village Pump, and other editors pursuaded him to work together with me. The second dispute was when another editor added a statement sourced by Time magazine about an illegitimate daughter, and he constantly reverted it again, despite arguments on the talk page that Time is reliable, and that other sources exist. That dispute was resolved after I left a message on his talk page, informing him of violations of certain guidelines, and suggested a compromise. He relented, readded the statement, and we shook hands and walked off. In short, I've never had any disputes serious enough to warrant Requests for Comment and more.
4. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Alasdair before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support User has given me no reason to object Dustihowe 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. Good spread of experience - seems to know what he's doing... WjBscribe 11:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per WJB, good Wikipedian. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support 3 FAs, 128(That's a nice rounded number!) AIV reports and the Nom from WJB pretty much sealed the deal. --Chris  G  11:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Trust the nominator's judgement, nothing seems amiss with the candidate. Daniel 11:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - featured article writing, in addition to vandal fighting. Solid candidate. Addhoc 11:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support if WJBscribe supports, so do I. But seems to be an excellent candidate --Benchat 12:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems to be a good choice. Jmlk17 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Don't see any potential issues with this one. Majoreditor 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support This is a very experienced user. Glad to give my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. The CSD tagging and AIV reports look spot-on, and article building experience looks good. (I never would have guessed that a YouTube video could make Featured Article status, but I see how it made it.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support for excellent content contributions. I enjoyed reading The Bus Uncle. - Jehochman Talk 15:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No doubts here. нмŵוτнτ 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Looks good to me. east.718 at 19:59, October 5, 2007
  16. Support Has plenty of experience, will make an exceptional admin. --bobsmith319 20:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great editor, plenty of experience. STORMTRACKER 94 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support On a check of contributions, definitely seems worthy. Orderinchaos 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support a candidate that deserves the mop. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Impressed by your FA contributions. --WriterListener 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good experience of editor at AIV, generally appears unlikely to abuse the mop.LessHeard vanU 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Great contributor, well rounded and has participated in many areas of Wikipedia. Phgao 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Nominated by Scribey, supported by Falley. --DarkFalls talk 00:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support especially to the increased contributions over the past few months compared to the first few, with also significant portion of contributions to Wiki-related pages.--JForget 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per excellent answers to questions --Pumpmeup 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I can't see any problems, doubt user will abuse the mop. Tiddly-Tom 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support as per WJBscribe an has been very active in the last 5 months with over 3000 mainspace edits.No concerns after checking the track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, I trust the nominator and the candidate. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support John254 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Fine user. Acalamari 22:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I had some one-on-one interaction with the candidate over a problematic user and was favorably impressed with his attitude and approach. Having closely watched Alasdair improve Jackie Chan, I can attest that he plays well with others. - BanyanTree 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I don't see any problems at all. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per above. NHRHS2010 Talk 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Can't find a reason to oppose. G'luck Dureo 06:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Per the above; it appears they will be a good admin. • Lawrence Cohen 13:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - from one Alasdair to another. Khukri 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Good editors inevitably make good admins. Rockpocket 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - based on great encyclopedia building skills, e.g., The Bus Uncle, one of my favorites FA's of the year. Can be trusted, of course. Bearian 13:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - good credentials, your time has come. :-) Lradrama 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support good work at CSDs - lots of deleted edits to prove it. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Looks like an excellent editor, and a fine candidate for adminship. --Folic Acid 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Strong editor. Lara❤Love 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, editor seems trustworthy, nominator's trustworthy, everything's good. Wizardman 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Sure. Melsaran (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Great contributor, no concerns here. -- Chris B • talk 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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.
Category