Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Searchme

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

Searchme

Final: (49/0/0); ended 15:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Searchme (talk · contribs) - My first thought when I saw this guy was, well, I don't remember exactly, but I do remember thinking he was an admin, and finding out he wasn't surprised me. He's got edits basically everywhere, with over 20k in total, so that's certainly not a problem. He's part of a slew of WikiProjects, most notably WikiProject Numismatics. His forte is in portals, and I actually think calling him the "portal king" wouldn't be too far off. He has a chunk of Featured Portals, including Portal:Numismatics, Portal:Texas, Portal:Military of the United States, Portal:European Union, Portal:Holidays, Portal:Electronics, and Portal:Robotics, though he also runs Portal:Home improvement, and Portal:Indiana (which may be fp worthy). He may have even more that I missed. He also is a good article writer, as evident by him having a Triple Crown. He's basically active everywhere, friendly everywhere. His earning of the admin tools would be great for Wikipedia, as he has been around more than long enough, he knows what to do. My pleasure to nominate him. Wizardman 15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, and I humbly accept. Joe I 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, I've always been an adamant reverter, so RC patrolling and rollback is right up my alley. I've also seen alot of problems of naming articles so Wikipedia:Requested moves would also be a priority. And I just had my first use of Wikipedia:Help desk recently, and would love to help out there. Along with discussions such as MfD and TfD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's hard to tell, I love doing portals, as well as Numismatic terminology, Geography of Texas, List of world expositions, List of counties in Texas. But I've gotten the best responses and sense of helping from welcoming newcomers.
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'm a real calm and laid back guy. And surprisingly, I can't think of any big conflicts. The worst thing I can think of is naming discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics, which tho long and still somewhat unresolved, were never openly hostile. But in dealing with one, I would try to make sure the discussion stays on topic, and focus on compromises.

Question from Durin

4. Given the recent outbreak of administrator accounts that have been compromised, have you checked your password strength such as at [1] and is your account password here different than the password of your registered e-mail account?
I have now. And after discovering my password was "weak", changed it to a "medium" one, which was/is different from my email account. Thanks. Joe I 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from falsedef
5. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, but has no reliable sources to verify its claims. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?
Tough question. First off, consensus without independent sources should not be automatically correct. I would look to see if the ones forming the consensus do so out of some set of biases, or maybe it's something of an urban legend. In the case of urban legends, it should be noted as such in the article, such as "Most experts agree bigfoot doesn't exist because of A, B,and C(cite sources), although many people do believe it does but cannot provide verifiable proof." In either case(biases or legends or whatever), after a temporary comprise can be made, it should go to WP:RfC to gather a larger perspective. Joe I 04:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Searchme before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. I'm not even gonna wait for the question answers, I'm that confident in him, support as nom.--Wizardman 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)im[reply]
  2. Support - will making him and admin help make this project better? Yes. Job done. Good luck. The Rambling Man 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm searching, but can't find any problems. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Any user with no red flags and more edits last month than nearly double what I've amassed in a whole year surely deserves access to the tools. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support pretty impressive resúme (did I get the funny squiggly thing right over the "u"?) JodyB talk 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Per nom. -Mschel 20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Very dedicated and amply experienced. κaτaʟavenoTC 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've encountered this user while I was working with portals (got him confused with user:Jahiegel). He's done fabulous work on Wikipedia, and he looks like he could use the admin tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Seriously, why did it take this long? Good luck! Jmlk17 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seems to have a strong regard for diversifying content. EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I see no problems with this candidate. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, you bet. --Phoenix (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support. I think this user has done excellent work, as far as I can tell, but has no descriptive userboxes. Good luck! Abeg92contribs 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's userboxes have to do with adminship? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just find, in my experience, that editors without userboxes are often generators of more heat than light. However, after reviewing this user's contributions, I must give a strong support. Not that it's a big deal :-). Abeg92contribs 01:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just incase you're wondering, I did have userboxes, but removed them all shortly after all hub-ub about them. Joe I 04:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Best Choice Possible!!! --ISOLA'd ELBA 23:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Excellent candidate; fine addition to the admincorps. Xoloz 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've worked with him at WP:NUMIS. He's always willing to take on the jobs that no one else is dealing with (like Assessment). His answers to the questions above match my impression of him (calm, reasonable, friendly, helpful). Ingrid 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. What took so long? -- Y not? 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support competent editor who'd put admin tools to use. falsedef 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yah. Daniel Bryant 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support definitely a good candidate. —Anas talk? 07:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Teh portal expert. Michaelas10 10:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Superb Editor..----Cometstyles 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. -- LeCourT:C 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per all of the above. No problems anywhere. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Remarkable record. Besides, I like his answer to falsedef's question. Stammer 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Solid contributor. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Ooh, couldn't resist. I'll trust Searchme, who has shown a lot of talent in editing the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, great work at Geography of Texas and and dozens of others. Need more 'jack of all trades' types. Kuru talk 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Good reviews in WP:FPOC. Good work! (AQu01rius • Talk) 06:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Kusma (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Benzocane -- Exceptional record of service to the community.
  34. Support No oppose yet, so I´ll support. ♠Tom@sBat 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support with pleasure. Joe is a positive and constructive contributor, who is more than qualified for the mop.--cj | talk 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I love to see admins involved in WikiProjects. Go ahead. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 'Support Excellent candidate with 4418 in Mainspace and 22203 in total. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I'm not Mailer, but I approve this message!VK35 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: User has a lot of experience. Edit summary usage on major edits is lower than 100% but I notice that the user is using edit summaries now quite frequently so no problems. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - solid candidate. Enjoy it. Philippe 06:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Another good candidate from Wizardman from I see here. Acalamari 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support John254 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Zaxem 07:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Seems to be a good candidate. Captain panda 13:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. People always make fun of RfA editcountitis by referencing candidates' "portal talk" edits. Well, Searchme, has nearly 300 such edits ... so support. Oh, yeah, there's also the factors of experience, lack of any obvious problems, and good contributions to project. But mostly ... it's the portal talk edits. ;) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support good candidate. Nobody else can find any problems either. James086Talk | Email 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Slade (TheJoker) 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support um... yeah! --Infrangible 18:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yes. PeaceNT 10:47, 14 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Searchme&oldid=1147996096"