Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Kennedy

< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

Kennedy

change
Kennedy (talk · contribs)

End date: February 24th

Hello, Shapiros10 here. As you can see, I'm nominating Kennedy for bureaucrat. I think that Kennedy would definitely make an excellent crat. Kennedy first became active 7 months ago, and has displayed great article writing skills and has shown very good judgement in deleting QD pages since October 2008, when he was made an admin. Kennedy is generally viewed as a face of wisdom around here, and definitely has the experience to make a great crat. Recently, Kennedy attempted a request for checkusership. Although he fell shy of the required 25 votes in support, it showed that the community certainly has trust. Hopefully, in 7 days, Simple will have a 4th crat. :) Shapiros10 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late co-nom from Razorflame : Hello there all. Sorry for posting this so late, but I just had to co-nominate Kennedy. This user is one of the only users on this site that I fully trust and trust enough to give the bureaucrat tools to. Since he has become an administrator, he has made some mistakes, but most of them were honest mistakes that were easily fixed. The best part about this is that Kennedy realized what he did wrong and fixed his behavior so that he didn't make the same mistakes again. He has been very active in the community and while he has been an administrator, has helped out the project in more ways than you can shake a stick at. He has also demonstrated that he has a cool head in heated situations, which makes me all the more want to co-nominate him. Cheers, Razorflame 18:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I most humbly accept. Thank you Shappy (and Razor!) for your kind words! Kennedy (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

change
  1.   Strong support As nominator. Shapiros10
  2. Good heavens yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Strong support No reasons not to support this candidate and as co-nominator. Cheers, Razorflame 13:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Why not? He's a good candidate! There is nothing to say no. Regards, Barras (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Definately has his head on straight. -Djsasso (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support –Juliancolton (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Obviously SimonKSKContradict me... 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Majorly talk 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I generally trust you. TheAE talk 18:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support fr33kman t - c 18:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Strong support - No reason not to support.--Fairfield Deleted? 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Strong support - Very Strong oppose. Not the user for the job ;) . Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Weakly support I don't trust you fully but I don't think you'll abuse the tools.-- † CM16 t c r 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason why you don't fully trust him? –Juliancolton (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pathetic. Why does every !vote that he makes have to be challenged? He supported. Please, let it be. TheAE talk 21:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You incorrectly interpreted the comment as badgering. However, it would help Kennedy (and perhaps others) if there was an explanation. I mean, trust is a pretty important thing...so lack of it is a relatively big issue. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because every vote he makes he attaches an absurd irrelevant comment to it. This is precisely one of the reasons I think he hasn't grown up enough to be unbanned from enwiki. What is pathetic is weakly supporting or opposing just about everyone for no reason whatsoever. Majorly talk 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While, I agree that these oppose/weak support votes from him are annoying, I have to agree with AE. Do we need this to escalate? An explanation would be nice, but Majorly, your comments are really unneeded. SimonKSKContradict me... 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate is a real person. How would you like if someone randomly said "I don't trust you", without any explanation? –Juliancolton (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but as you can see, Kennedy is not saying anything. We all know that CM is just saying something stupid. Do we need to go after this? SimonKSKContradict me... 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would quite like for CM to stop doing this, as I think would everyone. Majorly talk 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rather poor argument, as Kennedy hasn't edited at all since CM's !vote. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason that Cman's is the only vote which was challenged is because he is the only one (so far?) to give a negative point. I don't see it as "badgering" or "harrassment". I believe that if you vote at all, in any RfA/B/C/D, you better have a good reason. Cman obviously does, but its Juliancolton's right to ask for the reason. Anyway, I wouldn't like this to get into an argument. Kennedy (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, no, there isn't a reason specifically why I don't trust him, I just don't have the feeling of full trust. And if telling the truth is wrong, even if it is a "stupid reason" then I don't want to be right, Majorly.-- † CM16 t c r 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the former sock puppeter. -Djsasso (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Hornetman16 was the sockpuppeteer, yes Hornetman and ChristianMan are the same person behind the usernames but to me (and apparently The AE) when I became ChristianMan, I left my Sockpuppeteering days back with the Hornetman name, and yes I "killed" Hornetman16.-- † CM16 t c r 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that you always get upset when people have this feeling where they don't quite trust you and don't have a reason for it, yet you are now doing the same thing. I just want you to remember that the next time you are about to cry "But that was in my past." because obviously you don't feel that a clean record is enough to trust someone. -Djsasso (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Got suckered into the avalanche.   Support while I grab my winter gear to play in the snow. --Dylan620 (Sign this plz) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 09:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support (without the daft voting symbol) on the grounds that every admin should be a 'crat after a period of, say, three months, active, hassle-free admin work Soup Dish (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At least you still bolded the support in the vote :). Razorflame 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes, absolutely I hope my vote will count, I'm not really active. And I really hate those voting templates :( SteveTalk 00:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) SteveTalk 00:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you hate the voting templates?- † CM16 t c r 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares? He has good reason too. Many Images can lag the server. SimonKSKContradict me... 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate them because everywhere they're used (RFA, RFD) are places where there should be proper discussion, not just counting how many   Supports and   Opposes there are. The voting templates basically turn all these discussions into a vote. SteveTalk 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's the user's fault not the template, yes a user should explain, but the templates are for ease nothing more, an explanation should be there, talk to the users.-- † CM16 t c r 20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The templates don't make anything easier. Its just as easy to type quotes to bold as curly brackets. Nevermind that the comments are already under support and oppose sections so the words support and oppose are redundant anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Strong support Claimgoal 10:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support — RyanCross (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I   Support Kennedy because of the unanimous support of the community. Thamusemeantfan (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support. Great user that will make a great crat. Good luck Kennedy! Malinaccier (talk) (review) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support--Dalibor Bosits © 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support Of course. I feel Kennedy has done very well.-- Tdxiang 15:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

change

Comments

change

The Oppose section looks strangely empty. Something's wrong here. ;) SimonKSKContradict me... 17:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh... Don't jinx it ;) Kennedy (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result

change
Closed early as successful. --Eptalon (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Kennedy&oldid=8876407"