Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kennedy

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

Kennedy

Kennedy (talk · contribs)

End date: 11 October 2008, midnight UTC
Kennedy is a hard working user who has been contributing actively for several months now. He has over 1600 edits including a good portion to the mainspace. The highlight of that is Scottish Premier League which will hopefully appear at PVGA soon. Kennedy has also done a lot of general cleanup and maintenance work on articles that are related to the SPL. He also comments on community discussion boards and RfDs where he is knowledgeable and constructive. I think Kennedy would be a good admin. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by – RyanCross (talk): I would also like to nominate Kennedy for adminship. He meets my RfA criteria and I know he'll do just fine as an administrator. He's done a lot of constructive work for Simple English Wikipedia, and what I'm about to say is only some of them.

Kennedy has been an active contributer to Simple English Wikipedia for over 5 months and has contributed to many areas of Simple English Wikipedia. He has amassed almost 1700 edits, having 130 deleted edits, 25 of which have been WP:QD taggings, and has made a few contributions to WP:VIP. His article work is certainly very helpful to Wikipedia, and has improved many of our articles around Simple Wikipedia, even by minor edits. An example of his work would be the current good article, Scottish Premier League. Even through discussion, Kennedy has been helpful, participating at Wikipedia:Simple talk sometimes and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and even Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. He has helped many other editors if they asked for help, something I admire in Wikipedians very much, and he has discussed and talked in a civil matter. He also edits at times when most of our active administrators don't (around 7:00–12:00 (UTC)), so he can fill in those areas.

I'm sure Kennedy as an administrator will be able to do more positive work with the tools. I trust Kennedy will use the tools wisely and appropriately, and will definitely, with no doubt, be a benefit to our community. I don't think there is anything to oppose Kennedy about, so the outcome of this request for adminship is pretty clear. We also need more active administrators, as many have become semi-active or inactive. I wish you luck, Kennedy, but you probably don't need it. Thank you, – RyanCross (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept, and thank you both for the nominations and your kind words :) Kennedy ^(talk) 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As nom. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. I have no reason to suspect he isn't a good candidate. Synergy 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've known Kennedy since he started on here and have no reason to doubt he is trustworthy and knowledgeable enough to help maintain and improve the Wikipedia. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great guy, net positive (sorry Pedro, i'm stealing your catchphrase :P) Sebb ^Talk 11:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good! Majorly ^talk 12:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support Cheers -- Static^{-=Electrify My Thoughts=-} 23:25, Friday October 3 2008 (UTC)
Yup from what I have seen he is a good candidate. -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nomination, and he's friendly too =). Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Should be a good admin. - tholly ^--Talk-- 09:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support - Your not one yet?-- † Christian Man 16 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Level-headed. EJF (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Active and level-headed; RyanCross gives a good breakdown of this user's strengths. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ecoleetage (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give reason even if its per above or something similar. FSM ^Noodly? 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No he doesn't! Shocking Hawk 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely optional for am RfA voter to give a reason for their !vote or not, FSM. – RyanCross (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. But the !vote won't be counted either way. As he created the account at 22:00, October 5, 2008, after the RfA started. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support because I think Kennedy is a fine editor. Okay? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not necessarily true AE, its up to the closing Bueracrat (can't spell that word :( ) to decide. I doubt it will be discounted because his vote wont sway the decision Kennedy ^(talk) 07:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B-U-R-E-A-U-C-R-A-T ;) – RyanCross (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And S-T-E-W-A-R-D. Tharnton345 07:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RyanCross, I will write it down :) Kennedy ^(talk) 08:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just type "WP:CRAT" and see where it links you. ;) But about the above, it's not really up to the counting Bureaucrat, it's policy. WP:CfA clearly states, "Named editors cannot vote in requests that were running when they created their account." Sorry, but it was created during this RfA. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough AE, must have missed that :) Kennedy ^(talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support he really did, write it down, must support this one ;o)--Dalibor Bosits (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support Very accuarte editor. Is very kind. Tharnton345 07:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Is the post-it note still up there? Chenzw Talk 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. :P I think it fell off and the cleaner must have binned it. I will remember it though! Kennedy ^(talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I highly support this user becoming a sysop at this time. Good luck with the tools, and try not to delete everything you set your sights on :). Cheers, Razor flame 23:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Static, you don't have to nominate every user you think should be granted the flag. That is what {{support}} is for, especially when you've already voted and you don't even say anything but "what the above people said" and "he's nice." This is just from my perspective. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blah, blah, blah. Cheers -- Falcon^{-=Electrify My Thoughts=-} 23:06, Saturday October 4 2008 (UTC)
  - SF, please don't be rude. Especially to American Eagle, one of our finest users. Sebb ^Talk 19:08, October 4, 2008 (UTC)
    - Sebb, rembember to sign. And stop acting like my mom. Cheers -- StaticFalcon^{-=Electrify My Thoughts=-} 23:09, Saturday October 4 2008 (UTC)
      - Sorry for the attacks. Retirement is coming... ...NOW! Cheers -- StaticFalcon^{-=Electrify My Thoughts=-} 23:15, Saturday October 4 2008 (UTC)
      - Stop acting like a child, and then he won't have to. Your co-nomination was incredibly pointless. Majorly ^talk 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Static, don't retire. Majorly, ouch. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now I have another reason to retire, because of Majorly's comment. 67.189.185.73 (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bye then. Majorly ^talk 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like you care. 67.189.185.73 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well clearly I don't. This is really not something to "retire" over, but it's your choice. Majorly ^talk 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        STOP! 86.131.15.64 (talk) (woo! IP!) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        NO! Shocking Hawk 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful --Eptalon (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.