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.
TimPope11:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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
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. --
DS1953talk04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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. --
Bhadani16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 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|
Black01:01, 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. --
Wgfinley03:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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?
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.
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.
TimPope11:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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
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. --
DS1953talk04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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. --
Bhadani16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 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|
Black01:01, 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. --
Wgfinley03:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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?
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.