Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheoClarke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] TheoClarke

final (42/1/0) ending 07:40 22 June 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've ever nominated anyone, so I guess it's about time. Theo is a quality editor whose primary focus is on maintaining the highest possible standards on Wikipedia. He also has a sense of humour, which is a vital attribute for an admin. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am warmed by this nomination. Admin tools would certainly ease my tidying. I accept. --Theo (Talk) 09:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes! Intelligent and friendly. Maurreen 07:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Really ought to vote for my own nominee. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
3. Support-JCarriker 10:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
4. Okay! El_C 11:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Support - Darwinek 12:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Strong candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Absolutely support. Helpful, civil, and intelligent. Should be an excellent admin. --Scimitar 13:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. Support - I look on RFA for the first time in a while and there's a familiar name at the top, which is always cheering... Excellent candidate. Shimgray 14:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Guettarda 15:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
12. Soitenly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
13. Support--very friendly and open to advice, and a fine article writer. Meelar (talk) 21:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
14. Support-Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 22:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
15. Support - Excellent contributions to the community --FCYTravis 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - Considerate, helpful, and very friendly. Sango123 01:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. JYolkowski // talk 01:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
18. Support- Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^{Desk 02:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
19. ^{Everyking 03:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
20. ^{Support. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)}
21. ^{Support. ral315 04:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)}
22. ^{Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
23. ^{Support --Spangineer (háblame) 10:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)}
24. ^{Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)}
25. ^{Support this obviously qualified candidate. Capable janitor and has shown the clear capacity to moderate, rather than enflame, conflict. Kelly Martin 21:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)}
26. ^{Support. Reasonable, courteous, and and a valuable editor. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
27. ^{Support, most definitely. I'm sure I owe him a pint, too. James F. (talk) 01:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
28. ^{Support. Give him the mop. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
29. ^{Support. Seems like a good editor to me. Paul August ☎ 13:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)}
30. ^{Michael Snow 19:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
31. ^{Absolutely! - UtherSRG 22:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)}
32. ^{Support. Mike H 23:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)}
33. ^{Support -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 23:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
34. ^{Support wisdom and wit. — mark ✎ 13:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
35. ^{Support 100% - great editor, feel that this person will make a great admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
36. ^{Wiglaf 09:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
37. ^{Cool. JuntungWu 11:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
38. ^{Support. Marcus2 12:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
39. ^{Support. History indicates responsible adminship. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)}
40. Support. "Thought he was an admin" moment. Hedley 22:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
41. Support, great edits, great at communicating with other editors, great attitude. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
42. Support For reasons already mentioned.--newsjunkie 14:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Boothy has opposed all the nominations which exist, giving no reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Because Boothy443 has opposed every adminship request on this page without reason, I have left him a polite comment/suggestion on his user talk page that he either provide reasons for his opposition or withdraw his votes. Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^{Desk 21:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

   Yes I'll give you a note, a symphony of about 12 all above saying just "support" their reasons being?... Stop bullying him for a reason it's his choice! Giano | talk 21:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   The purpose of voting on Wikipedia is to build consensus. Votes without reasons do not help to build consensus. Kelly Martin 21:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you for your opinion, Giano. However, I am neither bullying Boothy443 nor pressuring him to change his vote; on the contrary, I respect everyone's opinions and their votes. I am simply informing him of the standard RfA practice of listing a reason for opposition. Given that he has opposed every nomination on this page without a reason, I was attempting to help him by notifying him of the standard RfA practice, of which he may not have been aware of. Thank you for your understanding; undubitably we are all here to make Wikipedia better! Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 21:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Scanning this may help with understanding these votes. I regularly vote support on this page with little or no comment and do not really see the difference with someone voting oppose in the same way. The concern here is, I suppose, because of the blanket-bombing approach. Boothy443 seems to have wider concerns with the adminship of Wikipedia and is entitled to hold and express them. Unfortunately, the approach chosen is likely to be ineffective, as this kind of protest vote very quickly comes to be both expected and ignored. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

   I attend to agree with Filiocht. I have given a long and tedious explanation of my views on this subject here [1] Giano | talk 07:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Copied from TheoClarke's talk page:

   I just wanted to make clear that in no way was I bullying or intimidating Boothy. When I posted my first comment, I was unaware that other people had already asked the same question- I simply did not think that a relatively current issue would be in the archives (stupid me!). However, I have already apologized to Boothy for re-asking this question, and want to make clear that I simply wanted to help Boothy by making him aware of (what we consider) an RfA standard. However, now that I have read his archive page, I completely understand his views. I have always respected everyone's opinions; after all, a plethora of diverse opinions is integral for Wikipedia! Sorry for any misunderstandings I might have caused, and thank you all for your dedication to Wikipedia. I hope this matter is now closed. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 14:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Well, I for one find this attitude to be more than a little puzzling. If he opposes all admins, the deciding beuracrat is going to ignore the oppose. I've left my own message on his talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• TheoClarke has approximately 3150 edits, according to Kate's Tool. Flcelloguy 14:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. The two main areas where I will find the tools useful include vandalism reversion (I have over 1000 items on my watchlist) and tidying up moves and merges. I have always tried to behave as a steward of the structure so I do not anticipate much change in my behaviour except being able to delete articles where there is appropriate consensus. Conseuqently, I will now look at the speedy candidates, which I previously ignored.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I have created too many articles to have any real favourites. I am proud that my first creation has survived largely intact but trying to get David Helvarg through FAC has tested my self-esteem at times. I guess that what pleases me most is the diversity of my contributions and the number of editors with whom I have successfully cooperated. I think that Wikipedia is a magnificent creation and I am warmed by the belief that my actions have improved it.

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. The only real stress I felt (and I was most surprised by my response) was when a vandal forged my identity and left some abusive messages for others. I was very active in defending against the pointlesswasteoftime attack and believe that its early resolution was in part due to my negotiations with the leader of the attackers. I have made a point of contributing to some controversial debates and tring to moderate the heat. In only one case am I aware of the isue being left unresolved with an editor feeling personal animosity towards me and in that case the reassurance that I afforded the initial victim of the antagonism made it worthwhile. I find it important to remember that in every case we are dealing with a real person who can be hurt by our behaviour and does what feels right for themselves at any moment (even if they subsequently regret the act or know that it does harm). This attitude has enabled me to help several apparent vandals become constructive editors.