Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:38, 31 December 2005

Locke Cole

(25/17/6) ending 01:55 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)

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

Support

1. Muahaha!!! --King of All the Franks 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The second time I forgot to be first vote today support karmafist 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support --Jaranda 01:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Strong support NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support after scanning your edits, you appear to be deserving a promotion.--MONGO 02:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Appears to be sane, and active in policy matters. (A rare combo?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, I trust Karmafist's judgement. Jobe6 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
10. Support --Terence Ong 04:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Seen a lot of him lately and have liked what I saw. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Seems to make good contributions, unlikely to abuse admin tools, no big deal anyway. Nightstallion (?) 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Seen him around, and liked what I've seen. Good editor. Banes 08:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
15. Support. Phaedriel 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support.--Sean|Black 10:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Level-headed guy, I expect him to use the buttons only with much consideration. --Ryan Delaney 10:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support percontra Andy Mabbett. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:57, Dec. 30, 2005

    You are mistaken. Andy Mabbett 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    Ouch. I consider that a personal attack. Don't edit my vote either. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (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)

    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)

    Duly noted. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (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)
20. Support --Phroziac _. o º 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support – I've seen much more good come from him than anything else. – ClockworkSoul 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Does anyone really beleive he'll abuse his privileges? I don't. Convince me.Gator (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, unlikely to abuse admin privileges, and what else matters? Dan100 (Talk) 20:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, he's level-headed, helpful, and turns up everywhere. Andrew Rodland 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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)

Oppose

1. Andy Mabbett 00:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

   Are you opposing on the count that Karmafist is the nominator? NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

   On what grounds are you opposing? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

   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)

   SCZenz, you've likely never heard of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing then. AGF isn't in POTW's nature. karmafist 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

   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)

   Cease making personal attacks, Karmafist Andy Mabbett 10:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   No offense, but "support" votes are usually less controversial than "oppose" votes. --King of All the Franks 03:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

   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)

2. Oppose I just don't feel he's ready. Sorry. Ëvilphoenix 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

   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)

   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: -- Curps 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
   • 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)
     • 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)
       • 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)
         • 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)
           • I addressed this 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)
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)
5. Oppose. I don't think that he is ready to be an admin. 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
   • 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)
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)
8. Oppose, per User:Radiant! and User:Kelly Martin. Jkelly 17:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose, worried about his attitude to copyright issues and consensus over voting. --Ngb 17:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
11. Oppose deleted his name and several others from my RFAr with the edit summary "kitchen sink". freestylefrappe 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. He's too new. Conscious 20:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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. -Splash 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose Fad (ix) 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose per above conduct issues.Voice of All 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
18. Oppose -- Nose is too brown. Judgement suspect. r b-j 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)