mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Conscious Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Conscious

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


Conscious

[edit]

Final (75/0/0) ended 20:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Conscious (talk · contribs) – Conscious joined the project on 31 May 2005, and since then has amassed over 14,000 edits according to Interiot's toolserver based counter. An editor who undertakes a lot of maintenance work, he is an active member of WikiProject Stub sorting, and can often be seen at SfD as a result. In terms of article writing, he has made significant contributions to the featured article FIFA World Cup and the featured list List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries. I regard him as an asset to the project and fully deserving access to the mop. Oldelpaso 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support because this user will very likely be promoted by a unanymous desicion.  :) Mostly Rainy 05:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Oldelpaso 18:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Hard-working editor, should be a good Admin too abakharev 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Strong Support per above and below. A very hardworker and should've been admin a long time ago. :) G.He 00:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, level-headed in disputes, a lot of maintenance work, knows WP, works in a wikiproject, etc. P.S. I predict a support vote from Francs2000. feydey 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I have met Conscious before, and although we have had a small conflict (or was it two?) he has been very mature about them. Overall, I know I can trust him with the tools, and know he will put them to good use. -zappa.jake (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Will make a great admin and will be very responsible with the tools. ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)
  8. Support per above. DarthVader 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per below. Master of Puppets That's hot. 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Trustworthy editor, mastery of maintainence tasks already thoroughly demonstrated. Xoloz 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, of course. Raichu 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rfa cliché #1 RadioKirk talk to me 23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A great user who would be a great admin. Mr. Turcottetalk 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Nick Boalch\talk 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, just my type of candidate! (well, isn't he everyone's type?) Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Me too! WerdnaTc@bCmLt 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support seems to be a great candidate, taking a look at contribs I see no reason to oppose and user has shown the tools would be a help -- Tawker 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good chap.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Will be an asset with the mop. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Very Strong Support Will be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nominator. Mostly Rainy 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Jaranda wat's sup 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Civil in his dealings with others. Was able to work with a bunch of footballers, so that has to count for something! Narrow interests, but seems to be able to deal with others. Ted 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support of course, and meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support. How the f#$%$#@ did I fail to notice Conscious wasn't an admin? If I had I'd have nominated him myself! Grutness...wha? 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support per nom. and Grutness. Valentinian (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support no evidence that nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. No alarm bells after a brief but careful inspection. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, unlikely to abuse tools, good editor. --Terence Ong 10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. No problems here. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support, well balanced edits, over-all good user.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support, with no qualms at all. Proto||type 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support--Jusjih 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The world of football can always use another level-headed mopper. Kukini 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support. A-class stubsman. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. --Tone 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. -- Zaxem 16:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. MaxSem 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support the P.C. term is "stubsperson", O Lizard. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. --Irpen 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, has done too much for me to oppose. Royboycrashfan 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support DGX 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Absolutely.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Hard to argue against that amount of edits without putting a foot seriously wrong. Rockpocket (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I thought he was one!  Grue  07:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, of course. haz (user talk) 07:56, 23 May 2006
  49. Support, :) Dlohcierekim 10:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. A very hard working editor, shouldn't have had to wait this long in my opinion. Rje 11:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Joe I 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Robert 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Asterion talk to me 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC) We have come accross a couple of times regarding WP:SFD. He strikes me as a very civil wikipedian and definitely hard working![reply]
  54. Support per above --Alphachimp talk 05:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support the mop must be given to this user. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. No interesting comments here, move along... Seriously, I think you'll be a good admin. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Merovingian {T C @} 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom. Sophy's Duckling 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --Shultz IV 07:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support better late than never support here. I've come across Conscious a couple of times recently and been impressed with his judgement. Gwernol 12:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support what everyone else said. --Bachrach44 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Civil, mature, and hard working; ready for adminship. Yamaguchi先生 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Anything I might add has already been said. Joe 16:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good user will be a good admin. ---J.S (t|c) 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support So many edits, so few enemies. Looks good to me. Stephen B Streater 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Just-offered-to-nominate-him-myself-without-realizing-he-was-currently-RFA'd support (i.e., strong, if befuddled). Alai 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Another stub-maniac :). - Darwinek 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support A very good user with a wide range of good quality edits. I feel, he would be extremely valuable as an Admin. Jordy 18:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. How could you not? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak Support Great editor, though User Talk edits are surprisingly low. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support good editor. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Seems an excellent contributor. Afonso Silva 15:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Last minute support per the above. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments 

Username	Conscious
Total edits	15032
Distinct pages edited	12266
Average edits/page	1.226
First edit	04:07, May 31, 2005
	
(main)	12426
Talk	165
User	63
User talk	264
Image	22
Template	182
Template talk	9
Help	1
Help talk	2
Category	742
Category talk	7
Wikipedia	1035
Wikipedia talk	85
Portal	29
 G.He 23:34, 23 May 2006 (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 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: I prefer janitorial tasks, and am ready to help where backlog arises. I'm most familiar with WP:SFD and WP:CFD, but also interested in services like WP:RM, WP:CSD, or WP:CP (I have managed/am managing a few copyright claims there). I won't be looking for someone to block, but I know the blocking policy and what vandalism is. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Most of my content contributions concentrate around football, or, as we say here, football (soccer). The first article I started was Russian Cup. As Oldelpaso mentioned, I have contributed to a featured list and a featured article as a part of my work with the guys from WP:WPF. I also try to give a better coverage of Russian football by writing articles about competitions, clubs, and players.
On the other hand, I have sorted a good deal of stubs and taken on other cleanup tasks like article categorization and clearing Special:Uncategorizedcategories. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (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: I tend to work in the darker corners of Wikipedia. This and the very first advice from WP:DR (improve rather than reverting) leave me with no major conflicts. Talking also helps; for example, today I tried my persuasion on an anon, and it seemed to work. Among my stronger impressions is a not-too-pleasant discussion with Karmafist, when he engaged WP:WSS in December. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks even more complex than proposed Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, which has been criticised (in some variants) for the amount of maintenance needed and (in some other variants) for the lack of effectivity. Conscious 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.