Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Locke Cole

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Locke Cole

Final (42/29/7) ending 08:37 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole (talk · contribs) – Locke Cole has deserved this for awhile, he's a regular where you'll find policies, guidelines, or anybody trying to be incivil to others. In addition to this he's an expert programmer(at least according to his userboxes -- "will someone please think of the Robots"?), has over 3,000 edits, and I can unequivocably say that he is far more reliable than any cabal, real or imagined. karmafist 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Muahaha!!! --King of All the Franks 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The second time I forgot to be first vote today support karmafist 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support --Jaranda wat's sup 01:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support after scanning your edits, you appear to be deserving a promotion.--MONGO 02:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Appears to be sane, and active in policy matters. (A rare combo?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, I trust Karmafist's judgement. Jobe6 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I've read some of the things he's had to say at WP:RfAr and WP:AN/I. He looks like he knows policies well and can be trusted with admin tools. --Idont Havaname 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Terence Ong Talk 04:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Seen a lot of him lately and have liked what I saw. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Seems to make good contributions, unlikely to abuse admin tools, no big deal anyway. Nightstallion (?) 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Seen him around, and liked what I've seen. Good editor. Banes 08:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Also seen him around, and liked what I've seen. Good editor, and a polite one at that. Surprisingly rare. Slightly disagree with him on the Stub Sorting issue mentioned below but otherwise think he as a potentially great admin. If anything the wiki philossphy is too strong in him for seeing the need for slight control of the structural aspects of stub and categories. Anyhow - I have seen enough to know he is fair and will not abuse the influence or tools. Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Phaedriel 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support.--Sean|Black 10:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Level-headed guy, I expect him to use the buttons only with much consideration. --Ryan Delaney talk 10:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support percontra Andy Mabbett. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:57, Dec. 30, 2005
    You are mistaken. Andy Mabbett 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. I consider that a personal attack. Don't edit my vote either. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:23, Dec. 30, 2005
    It's not a personal attack; and you are not voting per me; you are voting contra to me. Andy Mabbett 17:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't edit others' signed comments. It is exceedingly obnoxious, and will earn you a block if you keep it up. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:11, Dec. 30, 2005
  19. Support I'd rather have an admin who follows all rules than one who ignores all rules. This candidate seems unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Haukur 15:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support – I've seen much more good come from him than anything else. – ClockworkSoul 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Does anyone really beleive he'll abuse his privileges? I don't. Convince me.Gator (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, unlikely to abuse admin privileges, and what else matters? Dan100 (Talk) 20:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, he's level-headed, helpful, and turns up everywhere. Andrew Rodland 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, I'm the more inclined to trust an editor who expresses his opinions on policy matters up front, rather than keeping his head down in expectation of the state of almost-inalienable adminship. I don't see anything wrong with the way he's interacted with POTW either. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support.  Grue  08:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Reasonable and active contributor, adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 09:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. From looking at his contributions, seems like a perfectly viable candidate for admin. Gallaghp 11:24, 31 December 2005 (GMT)
  29. Support. No problems with his dealings with POTW, more of a problem with those who enable his behavior and make his excuses for him. --Calton | Talk 11:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. El_C 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support good editor --rogerd 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. gift vote. happy new year Mostly Rainy 02:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Seen him doing very good work recently. I certainly don't believe he will abuse admin tools, although I would warn him to be very careful around POTW. He's clearly honest, as evidenced by highlighting the dubious vote above and putting his opinions up front on his user page. I happen to kind of agree with his opinion over fair use in templates, and strongly believe it has no effect whatsoever on his suitability for adminship. the wub "?!" 15:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Solid contributor, good people skills. -- Jbamb 17:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Worthy candidate, which is more than could be said than quite a few admins who already have received the Mop. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Loosk good. --Kefalonia 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Unenthusiastic support. Unenthusiastic not because of your credentials (impressive), but because of that silly template you have on your user page. Were you really born and raised at Washington State? (Follow the redirect.) ;) Matt Yeager 06:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Good chap, whom I support. -- Hoary 05:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, even though it doesn't look good. I've had a few exchanges with him and there he brought level-headedness even if I may have come on strong. Croat Canuck 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, due to the oppose voter who cited WP:V. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. --Kin Khan 03:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Andy Mabbett 00:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you opposing on the count that Karmafist is the nominator? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On what grounds are you opposing? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF, guys. One more oppose isn't the end of the world, and the closing bureaucrat can evaluate votes as (s)he sees fit anyway. -- SCZenz 02:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    SCZenz, you've likely never heard of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing then. AGF isn't in POTW's nature. karmafist 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    NSLE, note that Andy did not oppose the other candidate Karmafist nominated today. Karmafist, enough already. Leave the guy alone... like that RFAr you're quoting directed you to do. He actually is allowed to vote without getting insulted for it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Cease making personal attacks, Karmafist Andy Mabbett 10:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is that Pigsonthewing voted on this before it was even placed on the main RFA page, or before I had accepted it. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment exemplifies why you are not suitable for the power and responsibilities of adminship. Kindly point out where either is required. Andy Mabbett 10:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Question unaswered. And where are the complaints about King of All the Franks, who voted before I did? Andy Mabbett 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but "support" votes are usually less controversial than "oppose" votes. --King of All the Franks 03:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Along with helping SCZenz realize that AGF doesn't apply here, CBD. Also, you might realize that my comment was directed at SCZenz, not POTW; POTW can Boothy vote away all he wants, the Bureaucrats are likely not going to count it without a reason. karmafist 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I just don't feel he's ready. Sorry. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose This is one of those oppose votes that I hate casting, because Mr. Cole is a very nice fellow. I look forward to supporting him later (if that is even necessary.) Like EP, I just think he needs a tad more experience. Xoloz 05:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. No vote from me. Xoloz 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Leaves offensive comments, not a professional in my books, sorry. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.109.200 (talk • contribs)
    This anon IP left the following nastygram on Locke Cole's talk page one minute later: [1] -- Curps 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I have on several occasions seen Locke promote bureaucratic means over commonsensical ones, or suggest polling or strict vote counting over consensual discussion. He seems to not quite understand the difference between a reasonable guideline and instruction creep. Hence, I do not trust his judgment. Radiant_>|< 11:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, he recently said "I have used up my three reverts for the day", implying he doesn't understand the spirit of the 3RR so sticks to the letter instead. Radiant_>|< 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Respectfully, I must disagree with your reasoinning based on on the 3RR. Its similar to counting to ten. Doing it to the letter is usually a good idea!--Tznkai 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I used that wording because I'd previously been blocked for WP:3RR for reverting a link spammer (link spamming, oddly enough, is not considered vandalism). And of course because edit warring is bad. I was hoping by leaving that note an admin would provide a better solution (block the spammer, protect the page, etc). The page was semi-protected shortly after I left my note. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precisely because edit warring is bad, "using up your three reverts for the day" is also bad, not to mention gaming the system. Radiant_>|< 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I addressed this [2] as well, but reverting to control link spam may not be ideal, but it isn't great grounds for opposal. I'm sure you have diffrent and more compelling reasons for feeling the way you do Radiant!, but I think Locke genuinly has the right idea with 3RR here.--Tznkai 21:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose due to his conduct in relation to Pigsonthewing. I fully accept that Andy Mabbett is a very difficult user to deal with but he has made useful contributions. For his part, Locke Cole took (and takes) an extremely harsh view which simply stirs Andy up even more. This gives me cause to think that he may over-react if given admin powers of block and protect. David | Talk 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I don't think that he is ready to be an admin. BlankVerse 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose based on attitudes expressed on user page, specifically attitudes toward fair use (which is wholly unacceptable) and toward developers. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (note: Locke Cole has removed the comments upon which my vote is based. My vote remains unchanged. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned to you on IRC, I would not allow my philosophy to interfere with my duties as an admin. I've also updated my userpage, since it didn't really convey the actual problems I had with each thing I originally listed. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Per Kelly Martin and Radiant. I think a few more months of experience would make him a great candidate. Carbonite | Talk 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, per User:Radiant! and User:Kelly Martin. Jkelly 17:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, worried about his attitude to copyright issues and consensus over voting. --Ngb ?!? 17:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per User:Radiant! and User:Kelly Martin. Although I personally rather like the chap, I don't feel he has enough of a grip on how things are done around here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose deleted his name and several others from my RFAr with the edit summary "kitchen sink". freestylefrappe 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. He's too new. Conscious 20:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. He needs further tempering. Tone and attitude just don't feel quite right for an admin at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. There's more than enough stuff mentioned in this RfA alone to warrant an oppose, and the placing of such wholly wrong statements on a user page, is very concerning. The unmentioned removal of them doesn't make much difference; clearly someones understanding of the Wiki-way isn't repaired in a single edit, the summary for which is pretty acidic itself. Not ready for adminship by some way yet, I think. -Splashtalk 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Fad (ix) 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per above conduct issues.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose -- Needs more seasoning as opposed to some other comments here, I don't think a person's philosophy about copyrights or what have you enters into the equation about being an admin, admins should be expected to check their personal philosophy's at the door (as humanly possible anyway). --Wgfinley 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose -- Nose is too brown. Judgement suspect.[3] r b-j 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose -- I'd like to see him take adminship and Wikipedia more seriously before I can support him. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Ambi 15:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose -- While I'll admit that this user is tech savvy, I found his behavior during this debate to exhibit several qualities that an administrator should not have. His adamant stance was that the subject of said debate was "fancruft", yet when asked to explain what in policy supported this claim, he repeatedly dodged. His other stance (before the vote, not afterwards) was that he had consensus, yet this was only true for the original edit being debated, and not the revised one that he chose to delete anyway. When hearing explanations that contradicted both these stances (as early as the third paragraph), he repeatedly ignored them. When becoming upset, he resorted to an immature and personal attack ("you're out of your God forsaken skull"). User seems to put personal whim before policy and doesn't appear capable of admiting to being incorrect about anything (or even considering the possibility), so no, I don't believe Wikipedia needs this particular user as an administrator. -- James26 04:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I lost my cool there, mostly out of frustration that I couldn't get you to understand that you can't simply ignore other peoples opinions (even if you say they're "wrong"). Instead of engaging in the lengthy back and forth, I should have sought out other dispute resolution processes (and eventually, I did, electing for a straw poll to show you that there was consensus over the specific edit you were insistant on including). I do want to apologize for any personal attacks you believe I made against you though. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I don't know how to reply, Locke. Apology accepted (though I'm not sure you'd be making it if you didn't have something at stake, and for that reason -- and others -- I retain my stance that you should be a member, not an administrator). Let me state that it was not my intention to ignore the opinions of others (as I believe I mentioned once in the debate, my only concerns were facts surrounding policies, not opinions), but since you genuinely seem to feel that I did, I offer a sincere apology of my own for whatever feelings of yours I upset in that regard. -- James26 07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No. I concur with Kelly Martin on this one. --JuntungWu 14:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - I feel user is not ready for adminship. Triona 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - too many userboxes. --Pjacobi 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. oppose. To have been here for 3 months and create such controversy - I feel Locke Cole needs more time to prove that he understands the community and can work as an peacemaker and arbiter. Kingturtle 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, userbox fanatic. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. He is bureaucratic, abusive, and rude in his use of the WP:V rule. He need to learn more about WP:AGF and the Golden Rule before becoming an admin. AlbertCahalan 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you at all related to 24.110.60.225 (talk · contribs)? If so, surely you must understand that WP:V (and WP:NOR) are integral parts of Wikipedia. If we can't verify something, it makes the whole encyclopedia look bad.. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. that's currently and temporarily me. I log in to vote or move pages, and log out when I close the web browser. While I agree with both WP:V and WP:NOR, most uses of those pages involve users needlessly harassing each other. You need to show some restraint about such things, only pulling out the heavy weaponry when you have clear consensus on your side. AlbertCahalan 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I don't think so. The restraint here needs to be shown by you. I was merely asking a question and providing the relevant policy in case the anonymous user (who I had no idea was you) didn't know Wikipedia needed verifiability. You were extremely combative when I asked for a source, and in one of your responses you pretty much said WP:V was "needless". Anyone curious about this can check out Talk:EM64T (the MONITOR/MWAIT discussion). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, and will still oppose in the future. --Sn0wflake 05:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. For someone supposedly so supportive of WP:CIVIL, he's doing a good job of persuading me otherwise through his inability to deal with criticism in a polite and calm manner. Proto t c 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I cannot bring myself to vote for someone who has been so vociferously opposed to a project which has effectively sorted and organised a previously chaotic and virtually unusable part of Wikipedia (i.e., WikiProject Stub sorting, e.g., here). Despite this, I believe that in other ways Locke has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, even if he has a blind spot in that one area, and as such I won't oppose. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Grutness, and for what it's worth, I fully appreciate the efforts you guys engage in, I just disagree with one or two procedures currently used. Please don't ever think that I have it out for the whole project. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough. I think I'll stay sitting on the fence on this one though :) - AFAIK "neutral" votes don't affect the tally when it comes to deciding the outcome of adminship votes anyway. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 'Neutral leaning to support There seems to be a small amount of evidence towards the slim possibility of this candidate abUsing his admin tools. However nothing substantial. Also, adminship is meant to be no big deal. However, due to his disputes with some rather volatile users I am unsure if I can fully support this candidate due to the possibility to settle scores (See [pDavid|dbiv]], oppose) of abuse and the impracticallity of determining "who is right"; although I could by no means oppose his nomination. There is also the added concern of little experience; although he has many edits. --Chazz88 12:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Not very long ago I told Locke Cole that I'd oppose if he ran for adminship. I don't agree with the 'needs more experience' votes... Locke Cole knows his way around and has been involved in good ways with alot of things. My concern is with angry reactions, but Locke Cole has shown more restraint in that regard lately and thus I'm neutral for now. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning towards oppose for the time being. I would like to hear a definitive answer on the concerns a number of editors have with your supposed opinions on fair-use and cabalism--Tznkai 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'm going to wait and see how you handle questions to determine whether I support.--Tznkai 21:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He's handled this pretty well, and I will be inclined to vote support in another month, if only to gain more confidence from the community. For now, I remain neutral--Tznkai 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tznkai, and definitely thanks for keeping an open mind. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see Kelly Martin's link to my original views. I've updated my userpage to more accurately reflect how I really feel though. In any event, if given admin tools, I would uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not my own agenda. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did see those, and wanted give you the opportunity to say it in your own words here. So let me try again: Do you believe there is signifcant cabalism on wikipedia, and how stringent should we be about fair-use and copyright infringement?--Tznkai 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there is no cabal. I believe we should have zero-tolerance on copyright infringement, it's much to risky for Wikipedia. I believe we're about right on fair-use: we require sources, we try to limit usage, and we actively remove fair-use images that aren't linked to articles. My only complaint regarding fair-use is the matter of fair-use images in templates; I think that needs loosening. Otherwise, I have no problem with fair-use or copyright on Wikipedia and fully support the policies/guidelines in place. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wait a second. First you have some opinions on your user page that Kelly (rightly) states may not be very appropriate for an admin. Then you remove them with the summary "clearly having an opinion is a bad thing". And now you're saying here that you have the exact opposite opinion of what was on your user page less than a day ago. Wikipedia is not a political campaign that you can win by giving the voters what they want. Radiant_>|< 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Try not to bite and assume good faith. These are calm reasonable answers, devoid of hostility, and if you believe he is just pandering, feel free to say so, but please do it nicley, and his talk page is likley a better place for it.--Tznkai 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, my opinions have no impact on my intent to follow policy and guideline as an admin. Second, my updated user page is not "the exact opposite", and neither is my clarification here. How you get the impression that I'm trying to win some political campaign is beyond me though: I've been responding to others comments (and in this case, a request for comment) to try and explain anything that might be misunderstood. Maybe assume good faith for a minute and give me a chance to explain my actions and my position? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I should probably be getting some sleep instead, being tired and being reasonable don't mix too well. Radiant_>|< 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - not quite support, not quite oppose, just can't support this nomination right now. -- Francs2000 04:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral not quite sure at this point.--Alhutch 15:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. I'd like to help with RC patrol, as well as helping out with WP:TFD, WP:RM and maybe WP:AFD. But my primary concern is with fighting vandalism. Helping out with disputes, specifically monitoring WP:AN/3RR, is something else I'd like to look into.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Actually, my biggest contributions seem to be to things outside article-space lately. =) I've participated in a few WP:RFAr's, and I seem to do a lot of discussion in the project namespace. My contributions in article space tend to be towards videogames and technology articles. I've created and helped enhance a few templates for various videogame series (such as Template:Street Fighter series), and I believe my contributions will continue along those lines for now.
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've had conflicts with one or two users in my time here, but I've always tried to use the available dispute resolution procedures. I'll confess to having lost my cool on things in the past, but after seeing how ineffective it is to do so, I'm convinced I wouldn't put myself (or others) through that again. Better to work things out via consensus, or, as I mentioned, the available dispute resolution procedures.
4. I'd like to ask you about the toughest policy page on wikipedia to "get" , namely the policy trifecta. What's the trifecta? Why do we have it? Do you agree with it? Would you change it in any way? How do you see yourself applying it as an admin? (questions submitted via IRC from kim_register)
A. The trifecta is a grouping of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We have it because it's a logical organization of said policies and guidelines. I do indeed agree with it, and no, I don't think it needs to be changed. As for application, it seems like something I'd try to use everyday (administrator or not).
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/Locke_Cole&oldid=1082477853"